Yes, Per. We do. Thank you.PREGRIN wrote:However, it looks like we here understand this and put more effort into characterization and general conceptualization than most mainstream comics writers do.
Because it had shit funding, shit directing and shit production?And guess why the 1975 Doc Savage movie was forgotten at the box office whereas Raiders of the Lost Ark became a blockbuster?
Who says that our writing process doesn't go beyond that? I've repeatedly stated that the goodness of a work significantly depends on the individual influences of the individual creator/s involved.Why shouldn't we in the writing process go beyond "this is cool and this is also cool so let's write something like it because that'll also be cool" fanboyism in synthesizing and building on our influences too?
You're making broad statements regarding other people's use of conventions, genres and cliches without even taking into account or acknowledging their own individual influences - accusing them of fanboyism in synthesizing when you haven't even read or done your homework on our stuff while going off and making your pronoucements.
Let me quote myself from our MSN conversations:Then why do you act like the only definitive true path is to write mostly out of "this would be cool" gut feeling and stick to genre formulas "because they're fun" without explaining why they're fun, because only people who don't like "fun" would even question them?
: Let me rephrase: "Maybe I should write what I personally find to be entertaining - be it original, or taking in time and effort to create something I value, OR write like Kamin because I am unoriginal - because I don't freely feel the need to push the boundaries or frontiers of amazing superawesome literature at the moment. But hey if you want to go at it have at, be my guest, but I personally don't like grand sweeping statements of how XYZ or so-and-so is unoriginal and thus utter shit despite the fact that XYZ or so-and-so can be perfectly entertaining?"
Have I ever deemed anything utter shit? No, I just took offense to the fact that you're deeming things that are (at least to me) perfectly entertaining - subjectively, because who knew that art and crap actually involves subjetive aesthetics too lol - as things that are not even worthy of your time because you exclusively prefer original masterpieces and those works only.
Alright then. Some conventions are retained and not phased out because they consistently maintain the ability to entertain people as proven over time. I've never said that any attempts at making something else is worthless, I've only disagreed at your statements that these conventions are total crap. And I've constantly maintained that the ability of these conventions to entertain is also heavily dependent on the individual exertion of those whove worked on them to make them entertaining, and thus I think that wholesale statements that state that any work that follow these conventions are worthless are actually pretty damn insulting and rude towards those people whove worked and spent effort and time and thought in trying to bring entertainment to those who enjoy their works/
(because, lol, art and movies and stuff is actually mostly dependent on the INDIVIDUAL artist/entertainer who creates the work itself)
(and that someone whose work is found lacking OBVIOUSLY lacks his own individual touch)
(and that all of this is inherent in entertainment, be they genre bound or not bound to convention)
And though you may think it its shit-brained, some/a few/many people actually cherish some of these conventions of entertainment for some unapparent reason - but this is not mutually exclusive with people enjoying outright original things, either. Of course, you can call me unintellectual and anti-intellectual and unimaginative and uninnovative and unentertaining for that. *shrug*
Who the hell ever said that you can't have a good time because you think about narrative structures and come to the conclusion that a really fun story is one which is actually adventurous in its writing by defying audience expectations as well as having something beyond some pretty fireworks to offer?Why can't I have a good time because when I think about narrative structures I come to the conclusion that a really fun story is one which is actually adventurous in its writing by defying audience expectations as well as having something beyond some pretty fireworks to offer? That's why my favourite of the classic sci-fi writers is Philip K. Dick, he writes plots that take a myriad twists and turns - when you're reading one of his books you never know exactly what happens next.
Hell, the only one here who has the gall to come out and all but say that we're a bunch of uncreative fucks without actually even doing his homework or bothering to do actual-factual research, but instead make blanket statements on the things and works of other authors while citing science fiction series that he hasn't even seen aside from a few clips on youtube plus hearsay (your own words on nBSG) has been you.
Also, I think subverting cliches is actually unimaginative and unoriginal because it relies on subverting pre-packaged cliches and genre conventions taken from previous works and that is intellectual laziness. *monocle* If someone wishes to make a truly original work, then it should have nothing to do at all with lazily manipulating cliches or with conventions previously used by anyone, to achieve true uniqueness and artistic purity rather than laziness in merely tweaking pre-existing conventions and cliches one must truly venture into untreaded ground. *monocle* AM I RITE? LOL! Just kidding!