emperior wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:36 am
It plays on the themes of the arc because Bardock’s actions are what creates a trauma for Gas, who also cannot let go of the past.
First, I'd like to say you might be on to something about where Gas' character will go.
But man is it fucking lame if that's what's going on. Showing Gas acting the same then as he does now is sterile writing. "Show, don't tell" is a played out internet adage that people misuse, but it still holds value. If Gas is to be traumatized by this loss, then the flashback was a perfect opportunity to show him being different from how he is now.
You don't even need to write him drastically differently. Even just a physical transformation is enough. It doesn't even have to be too different; something as simple as a change in expression can work.
Here's an
example.
MajinPopo wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 11:51 amTo be fair, the fiction involving the actual story and the characters is far more important and interesting than the propagandistic
If you're going to be throwing the word "propaganda" around, which you've been liberally doing, then you should realize literally every piece of fiction ever spoken by man is propagandistic, even ones that don't purport to be. That's what happens when you use the word as broadly as you're using it.
Nobody said that fiction had to be devoid of real life issues. However, when the only reason you're interested in it is because of the political propaganda angle, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to dictate the direction of the fiction or it's discussion in the first place.
There is no "or" here. The preferable answer is "And". If you wish to make something that has nothing to say, or no deeper meaning to any of it, that's fine. That's what the vast majority of media is because that's what's most profitable to make. When we apply your broad definition of propaganda, then even those milquetoast, garden variety stories are saying something: they're reinforcing the status quo and propping up capital.
You want it to be a platform rather than an enjoyable story. It's disingenuous and foolish.
What a terrible way to speak to someone.
But sure, you can live in the world where Dante's Inferno is about a guy going into hell and not about the fall of the catholic church.
The thing is, you ARE reacting to comic movies. You're bitching because nobody wants to talk about the propaganda angles of it with you.
The first person who accuses another of "bitching" is usually the one guilty of it, buckaroo.
It would have been nice if you responded to the entire thing, rather than cherry picking pieces but whatever.
I don't see a need to make pages longer by quoting every single thing in a post. This post I'm making right now shows how silly that is. I'd rather just quote and respond to the point I find most salient instead of this pedantic petty nonsense. But if that's what floats your boat, have at it.
I never argued what you said I argued, but now that you bring it up, being an abject hypocrite is pretty ridiculous yeah. Again, it's interesting that your response is "Don't do it".
Let me break down your argument for you.
than the propagandistic meta-fiction dreamed up by sad bitter bourgeoise liberals in a mainstream cookie-cutter industry who thinks they're fighting the power, while sharing every opinion that said "power" tells them to.
That right there is nonsense. The idea that you can't criticize the industry while working in the industry is the same argument as "You criticize capitalism, yet you capitalism." If you don't work in the industry, your critiques don't matter and never get heard.
Take the Squid Game creator. He wrote Squid Game 10 years ago. But he was poor and was never able to get it made. Parasite then came out a few years ago, made critiques of capitalism and the societal stratification it engenders, became massively successful and thus resulted in Capital doing a "follow the leader" approach to find more works like it. That is why Squid Game got made, and got to get its message out there—a message, mind you, that is resonant with people. Of course, it will be commodified to hell and back, as these things are, but unless you're going to start a worker-owned co-op film studio worth billions of dollars... well you can just sit there and whine about these artists not passing your purity tests.
That is; you're acting like you should be able to dictate how others act, speak and think, because it upsets you when your integrity is questioned, and you're miserable because you can't.
This is a forum. People post their perspectives. My perspective is that discussing the ABCs of plot is boring. I don't care to discuss power levels, or the intricacies of how a fictitious world works. If people want to discuss that, there's little I can do, but I would much prefer to discuss themes, motifs and intention. I like art because I like to interpret, not to repeat. If the repetition of what happened is what I came to art for, I would just read wikipedia plot summaries.
I tried to be fair to you in my statement and never once told you what you should or shouldn't say, even if I disagreed. It's telling that you don't extend others the same courtesy.
Bad arguments shouldn't be made.
Who would have thought, the hypocritical petty soft-tyrant personality type also likes fiction full of propaganda funded by large political/corporate/military interests.
Yeah,
TKA on a dragonball forum telling strangers online to not get so caught up in the nostalgia for an old tv special that they miss out on what the actual author wants to do is the fascistic tyranny Marx warned us about.