godlessriffs

[godlessriffs]

I feel like we need a refresher on Watsonian vs Doylist perspectives in media analysis. When you have a question about a piece of media - about a potential plot hole or error, about a dubious costuming decision, about a character suddenly acting out of character -

A Watsonian answer is one that positions itself within the fictional world.

A Doylist answer is one that positions itself within the real world.

Meaning: if Watson says something that isn't true, one explanation is that Watson made a mistake. Another explanation is that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made a mistake.

Watsonian explanations are implicitly charitable. You are implicitly buying into the notion that there is a good in-world reason for what you're seeing on screen or on the page. ("The bunny girls in Final Fantasy wear lingerie all the time because they're from a desert culture!")

Doylist explanations are pragmatic. You are acknowledging that the fiction is shaped by real-world forces, like the creators' personal taste, their biases, the pressures they might be under from managers or editors, or the limits of their expertise. ("The bunny girls in Final Fantasy wear lingerie because somebody thought they'd sell more units that way.")

Watsonian explanations tend to be imaginative but naive. Seeking a Watsonian explanation for a problem within a narrative is inherently pleasure-seeking: you don't want your suspension of disbelief to be broken, and you're willing to put in the leg work to prevent it. Looking for a Watsonian answer can make for a fun game! But it can quickly stray into making excuses for lazy or biased storytelling, or cynical and greedy executives.

Doylist explanations are very often accurate, but they're not much fun. They should supersede efforts to provide a Watsonian explanation where actual harm is being done: "This character is being depicted in a racist way because the creators have a racist bias.'" Or: "The lore changed because management fired all of the writers from last season because they didn't want to pay then residuals."

Doylism also runs the risk of becoming trite, when applied to lower stakes discrepancies. Yes, it's possible that this character acted strangely in this episode because this episode had a different writer, but that isn't interesting, and it terminates conversation.

I think a lot of conversations about media would go a lot more smoothly, and everyone would have a lot more fun, if people were just clearer about whether they are looking to engage in Watsonian or Doylist analysis. How many arguments could be prevented by just saying, "No, Doylist you're probably right, but it's more fun to imagine there's a Watsonian reason for this, so that's what I'm doing." Or, "From a Watsonian POV that explanation makes sense, but I'm going with the Doylist view here because the creator's intentions leave a bad taste in my mouth that I can't ignore."

Idk, just keep those terms in your pocket? And if you start to get mad at somebody for their analysis, take a second to see if what they're saying makes more sense from the other side of the Watsonian/Doylist divide.

[godlessriffs]

As some of you may know, the original 1922 version of Nosferatu is my favorite vampire movie and one of my favorite films in general. Now they're about to drop a brand new remake of it. Now, the way I see it, any time you remake a movie, especially a classic one, it's important that the resulting film bring something worthwhile to the table. What does this new film have to say that previous versions didn't? What fresh new angle(s) does it display? What new freedom from censorship does it exploit? What weaknesses in earlier versions does it improve upon? In short, why do we need this film? In my opinion, Nosferatu got the only remake it will ever need when Werner Herzog made his version in 1979. However, I'm open to the possibility that Robert Eggers might convince me otherwise. That said...

1) Advance reviews I've seen have been uniformly positive, harping on the great story, the top notch acting, and the gorgeous visuals. I'll have to see the movie before I can form an opinion about the former two, but I have to say it: I hate the way movies look these days, especially sci-fi and dark fantasy films. Gaudy visual effects that make me wish CGI had never been invented. Horribly overprocessed cinematography that's been tweaked in post so much that even scenes with no visual effects look fake, making me wish the digital camera had never been invented. And, speaking of which, camera work that can't sit still; if it's not "cinema verite" shakycam it's the constant dollying back and forth, side to side, around this, over that, and through the other. And from what little I've seen from the trailers I don't think this film is going to break that trend.

2) I'm not sure the marketing decision to keep Bill Skarsgård's vampire makeup under wraps until the premiere was a wise one. The risk they're running is that the reveal had better be awesome or it's going to be a letdown; no middle ground is possible. The last movie I remember relying so blatantly on the "hide the monster" gambit was the Devlin/Emmerich Godzilla from 1998, and I think we all remember how that turned out.

3) I have, on the other hand, heard the clip of Skarsgård's voice as Count Orlock, and, frankly, I think it sounds absolutely ridiculous. It's like he's doing an over-the-top impersonation of Darth Sidious. Why do people think that shit sounds scary? Watch Herzog's version; Klaus Kinski came across as creepy and evil and dangerous just through his performance without any extraneous vocal affectations.

[godlessriffs]

Project 2025 Cliff Notes:

1. Complete ban on abortions, without exceptions (pg. 449-503)

2. End marriage equality (pg. 545-581)

3. Elimination of unions and worker protections (pg. 581)

4. Defund the FBI and Homeland Security (pg. 133)

5. Eliminate federal agencies like the FDA, EPA, NOAA, and more (pg. 363-417)

6. Mass deportation of immigrants and incarceration in "camps" (pg. 133)

7. End birthright citizenship (pg. 133)

8. Cut Social Security (pg. 691)

9. Cut Medicare (pg. 449)

10. Eliminate the Department of Education (pg. 319)

11. Teach Christian religious beliefs in public schools (pg. 319)

12. Use public, taxpayer money for private religious schools (pg. 319)

13. End the Affordable Care Act (pg. 449)

14. Ban contraceptives (pg. 449)

15. Additional tax breaks for corporations and the 1% (pg. 691)

16. End civil rights & DEI protections in government (pg. 545-581)

17. Ban African American and gender studies in all levels of education (pg. 319)

18. End climate protections: (pg. 417)

19. Increase Arctic drilling (pg. 363)

20. Deregulate big business and the oil industry (pg. 363)

Not to increase anxiety, but I found this buried on Reddit. From six months ago. very good thing to have in your pocket so you are prepared

[godlessriffs]

Remember that hypothetical street corner massacre Donald Trump crudely boasted about several years ago? I now believe he was sugarcoating it. At this point I'm convinced that he could pull out an assault rifle and start executing his supporters' children at point blank range right in front of their faces and every last one of them would say "thank you, may I have another". And sidetackle anyone who tries to stop him.

[godlessriffs]

Speaking as someone who hates Donald Trump as much as anyone could who hasn't been directly harmed by his actions, behavior, or policies, I honestly wish that whoever it was that tried to kill him last Saturday had stayed home.

Look, the guy is in his late seventies and lives on burnt steaks and fast food. Death will embrace him soon enough as it is. But now he has sympathy points, and anything that gives Donald Trump sympathy points is bad on general principle. If the shooter had succeeded in killing him, it would have made him a martyr, and Donald Trump doesn't deserve that.

I don't want him sent to the grave prematurely. I want his reputation assassinated. I want his power, his wealth, and his freedom stripped from him. I want everyone who ever supported him to wonder in shame why they did it.

[godlessriffs]

[godlessriffs]

[godlessriffs]

[godlessriffs]

that crunchy vibe that 70s/80s movies have that modern movies simply cannot capture… that kind of quiet empty vibe to em that can be played for either bleakness or a peaceful energy… why do all modern movies (even the great and pretty ones) feel overproduced after watching an older film. what is it I can’t put my finger on it but it’s there I can feel it

[godlessriffs]

As it happens, as I was watching this video, I'll Take You There by the Staple Singers was playing on the radio, and it looked like the water was dancing to it

Perfect standing wave on a computer-controlled wave pool

[godlessriffs]

Yesterday's conservative politician was the sort of person you could count on to do the right thing after he had exhausted all other options. Today's conservative politician doesn't even count doing the right thing among his options.

[godlessriffs]

Star Trek, "The Mark of Gideon."

Airdate: January 17, 1969.

Sigh.

[godlessriffs]

*sigh*

So Bezos is about to become history's first trillionaire. You know, I don't begrudge him creating the Amazon business model, and I don't even think it's wrong to get rich doing it. But for what he's "worth" he can afford to pay his workers a wage with full benefits that they can live on comfortably even in today's housing market. He could also solve world hunger, and do it still without ever wanting for anything as long as he lives. Instead, he's playing astronaut and having the world's most expensive dick measuring contest with Musk and Branson. And no one's calling him out on it.

And while I'm at it, stop blaming Biden for the high gas prices and stop calling it inflation. It's price-gouging and it's the fault of corporate greed.

[godlessriffs]

[godlessriffs]

May the 4th be with you

[godlessriffs]

[godlessriffs]

due to personal reasons, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH