#all things geek

[esonetwork]

ESO Board Silly Episode 36

New Post has been published on http://esonetwork.com/eso-board-silly-episode-36/

ESO Board Silly Episode 36

The board of the ESO Network is back. This time, Doctor Scott runs in to host this episode and talks to the crew about their experience with IA in the workplace and everyday life, including building websites and writing papers, recording music, and possibly replacing podcast hosts. But that’s not all, why not join us for all the fun, and help support the ESO Network by joining us at https://www.patreon.com/esonetwork, you won’t be sorry that you did 😉

[littledemo0n]

⚠️DEADPOOL&WOLVERINE SPOILERS⚠️

Never have i ever wanted to bingewatch Fox's X-Men movies more than in that moment right there...

[lightlytoastedcashews]

TSC 3 !!!!!! TSC 3 !!!!!!! TSC 3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[starsinthesky5]

i am still not over him buying the batmobile. he’s so nerdy and proud. i love that about him so much it’s not even funny. he’s so 😫

a nerdy child trapped in a hot athletes body. oh how i love you joe burrow

[astral-herald]

i feel like me logging onto tumblr every day is like clocking in to this silly little website that i love very much and being very happy to see my mutuals. good morning viktor nation and co.!

^ this is me being happy to see everybody

[yandere-daydreams]

On the topic of good horror books

The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson is beautifully written and has plenty of things for your brain to chew on, both while you're reading, and after you've turned the last page (and yes, there is mind fuckery that progressively gets worse in a good way)

I first read it roughly three years ago and I still think about it to this day and want to re-read it

i actually read the haunting of hill house this year!!! it's legit one of the best haunted house and unreliable narrative narratives i've come across, and there's just suck a flow to the writing and a charm to the characters (between all the fucked up shit i mean),,, i think i binged the audio book in one or two days and just. immediately restarted it because i was simply Still Reeling and not ready for it to be over.

i would also highly recommend 'we have always lived in the castle' (also by shirley jackson), which is more murder mystery than haunted house but still has that kind of uncanny, 'something is clearly wrong here but we simply must get to brunch' tone that makes hill house so compelling. i think shirley jackson just slaps in general, would love to know what her deal with fucked up houses is but i'm willing to continue on in ambiguity.

[jaxyscreams]

Geek Girl just hits different when you grew up undiagnosed autistic and got bullied for it

Like oooh I see parts of myself in such a kind and caring light and it feels cathartic it feels healing

[d1sc01nf3rn0]

I'm seeing a lot of people with neurodivergency, specially under the autism spectrum say that "Laios is annoying, never shuts up, is insensitive, and I can't stand him"; and the irony is not lost on me lmao.

[bemusedlybespectacled]

"But what are we considering a 'nerd'?" Literally whatever definition resonates with you. This is about personality vibes.

[wifegideonnav]

this is true friendship. btw.

[david-talks-sw]

Okay so I watched Inside Man on Netflix. It's interesting. More importantly, it's a masterclass in crafting likeable characters and how the POV we follow in a scene affects the way we see a character. Also, this somehow relates to the Star Wars Prequels, I promise! 😆

The moral of the series is that "everyone is a murderer, all it takes is a good reason and a bad day." The main characters are:

A vicar who - through a huge misunderstanding - has now locked his son's tutor in his basement and doesn't know how to get out of this situation, played by David Tennant.

A convicted murderer and ex-criminal psychology professor who solves crimes from his cell, as he waits for his execution, played by Stanley Tucci.

So a man who locked a woman in his cellar and a guy who murdered his wife. In any other movie, these guys are the villains. Yet, both of these characters are extremely likeable!

This is achieved through how relatably they behave in their relationships (kind, humble, humorous)...

... and through the emotion and/or charisma brought by the actors playing them (it's THE DOCTOR/CROWLEY and Stanley Friggin' Tucci)... but also through the amount of screen time they get.

We're with them for most of the show. There's other characters (the journalist, the trapped tutor and the vicar's wife) and subplots, of course, but they're our two anchors.

So when I'm watching David Tennant lock his son's tutor in his cellar and consider if he should free her - only to see him and his wife make things worse - I'm not thinking "you monster" like I do when I see Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs for example.

No, I'm thinking "goddammit vicar you're making things worse, it'll come back to haunt you, there's still a chance to turn back, please!" I'm rooting for him to make the right choice because I'm seeing him struggle and despair and hesitate throughout many scenes.

When I'm watching Stanley Tucci guiltily say he deserves death, after being so darn charming, humble and in clear possession of a moral compass, my instinct as a viewer isn't to go "he's right".

It's to go "aaaw, no it's fine, everyone makes mistakes."

And these characters remain likeable and/or relatable for a huge chunk of time... until, every once in a while, the show reminds you that, "remember, these guys are criminals."

"One of them's killed his wife then decapitated her, and the other one is contemplating murder, so they did/are doing evil stuff, they're the villains and you shouldn't grow fond of them."

Then it goes back to making you empathize with them again.

It's quite the emotional roller-coaster, very intriguing yet frustrating, which I have to guess is exactly what the show is going for.

But the point is: the amount of time we spend with these characters is partially what elicits this emotional reaction out of us.

If we consider the tutor's character:

For all intents and purposes, we should feel sorry for her, or full-on fucking love her. Objectively-speaking, she's:

smart but obviously scared,

we establish early on that she has a brave heart and stands up for oppressed women,

she thinks she's trapped by a pedophile or a man defending a pedophile, figures he'll inevitably try to murder her, yet manages to stay resourceful, determined and cool-headed despite it all.

She's an absolute superhero.

But that's not how the narrative frames her.

She's framed as an antagonistic force, in the vicar's subplot.

She may be the one tied up in a basement, but she's in control and the vicar is not. She's almost framed as being in a position of power (when she's really not), which leads the audience to view Tenant's vicar as an underdog.

When the vicar is trying to look for alternatives to end this situation so that he doesn't have to kill her, she's unhelpful,

and even starts pitting the vicar and his wife against each other.

Again, in-universe, she's scared shitless and in "fight-or-flight" mode. She's putting up a front because she's just trying to get outta this alive. She's the victim, here, not the vicar who captured her.

But as a viewer, you don't feel that, despite objectively knowing that. Why and how?

Because we barely see this character, compared to Tenant's vicar. So we have more time to grow to feel for him. There's "why".

Also 90% of what we do see of the tutor is her being aggressive, manipulative, sometimes downright merciless and we're seeing her from the POV of the vicar or the vicar's wife. There's "how".

Result: the viewer feels sorry for the captor and frustrated towards the captive.

This isn't a rational reaction, it's an emotional one (the goal of any visual artform being to get an emotional reaction out of the viewer).

Which means the series and Stephen Moffat effectively did their job.

How does this relate to the Prequels?

Well, a lot of people see the Jedi in a negative light in the Prequels, and Anakin in a more sympathetic one.

Even though the Prequels are about how a good man becomes bad, and even though the Jedi embody one of the major Star Wars themes (selflesness) as opposed to Anakin who clearly displays the anti-theme (selfish)... a majority of fans feels more for the latter than the former. Why?

Because the Prequels unintentionally do what Inside Man does purposefully. You react to Anakin like you react to the vicar. You react to the Jedi like you react to the tutor.

Simply put: Anakin has more screen time than the Jedi. And we don't just see him more, we see him struggle, we see him about what he knows to be morally right vs what he really wants, we see him be overtaken by his own fear...

... and just by contrast, that makes him more relatable than the Jedi, who have already overcome their character arcs and mostly all learned to keep their flaws in check.

The narrative doesn't intend to frame them as antagonistic. We do see them talk about how worried they are, we do see them emote.

And if you think about it, it's easy to see why:

their entire way of life is going to crap,

their values are being corrupted as they're forced to fight and die, alongside their clone brothers, in a war they wanted no part of,

they sense that the Force is close to the breaking point and that the galaxy's inhabitants are suffering on the daily.

But, for example, when Mace or Ki-Adi Mundi are shown expressing concern in the Prequels... as worried as they are, in-universe... out-of-universe, their measured reactions doesn't emotionally impact a viewer as much as Anakin's intense ones do.

So a big chunk of the audience will sympathize more with him than them. But like the tutor in Inside Man, the Jedi are objectively the victims and Anakin is objectively an unstable space-nazi who betrayed and destroyed them.

Just because we're not shown these characters be worried beyond just monotonously saying "I'm worried" doesn't mean they're not actually worried as Anakin is in Revenge of the Sith (if not more).

However we don't see it.

Because these three films aren't about the Jedi Order, they're about the Republic and about Anakin and about how each of these two beautiful things were corrupted (by Palpatine and by themselves) into becoming the very thing they stood against.

The Jedi aren't a factor in either of those two themes set up by George Lucas.

They became a factor when fans - who despite not liking the Prequels, still admirably chose to engage with the material - made the Jedi be more important to the narrative of the Prequels by re-framing these films as "The Failure of the Jedi".

Now, should Lucas have recognized that most fans wouldn't give two shits about why a Republic falls or the "matinee serial" format, and would've rather he focused on the Jedi, and developed them accordingly? Probably.

But good luck telling an indie filmmaker with a bunch of money how to tell the story he wants to tell.

Could Lucas have done more with the Prequels to highlight the fact that the Jedi are the underdogs of the story, not Anakin's oppressors? Yes.

But, firstly, he probably didn't think that was a point that needed explaining. And secondly, as he explained at Cannes, in 2002, feature films are a very limiting format to tell a story, especially one of the Prequels' scale. If it doesn't directly contribute to the story you're telling... it's gotta go.

A limited show would've been better to cover every aspect of the Prequels more in detail and avoid confusing the audience re: who they should be rooting for.

Which is why it's interesting, to me, that Stephen Moffat used his limited show to INTENTIONALLY confuse the audience! 😃

[astriiformes]

Comparing your work to other people's is a great way to kill your joy for a thing so let me be clear and say this is not that, I am just a human person with human emotions and sometimes that means needing to be the tiniest bit petty and then moving on. You know. For your health or something.

There is a very popular cosplayer who coincidentally keeps doing the same costumes as me, and I am just the tiniest bit annoyed about it, because as is the case with many (...most) very popular cosplayers, they have a very specific, airbrushed, conventionally attractive, perfect makeup, etc aesthetic to all their photos that is. Not what I personally value in cosplay, at least. Which is fine! Different people having different approaches to costumes is part of what makes cosplay such an interesting hobby!

But it does bother me a tiny bit that the work I put into my costumes is not necessarily the kind of work that gets attention, and it does make it a little glaringly obvious when it's The Same Characters.

(Also you all know the kinds of characters I cosplay. I gravitate towards them in part because they have weird energy, not super put together attractive energy. But that's only part of my point.)

Anyways. I do not follow them on Instagram because why would I do that, but nonetheless I saw that they're apparently also doing a Laois cosplay now, which I guarantee will get lots more attention than mine. And for the most part that's fine, I love cosplay and I love doing my weird little thing and I especially love that I do in fact know other people that value the same things as me & that we have fun together. I will have a great time in my fun little costume, dressing up with my friends in their fun little costumes and I am looking forward to it. And I do not actually need likes to validate that I am becoming a pretty damn good cosplayer (whose stuff is better quality than many popular cosplayers' because I care more about craftsmanship than I do getting attention). I am even thinking pretty seriously about having Laois be my first ever competition costume if the armor turns out alright, because I think I'm genuinely getting to that level.

But it would just be kind of neat if being a weird little guy with weird little ideas who is into the hobby because I like sourcing historical patterns and materials and thinking about the worldbuilding that goes into costumes and creating neat little "in-universe" ephemera to hand out to people and all the things I like didn't always mean getting overshadowed by Instagram Perfect Attractive People.

Alas. Okay glad that's out of my system I'm normal again. I'm going to make some more chain mail.

[pollenallergie]

Eddie may be a tried and true metalhead, but he’s also someone who gives off MASSIVE theatre-geek vibes, so I just know that man fucks with Queen hardcore. Turn on Don’t Stop Me Now and watch him turn into a Tony-award-winning performer right before your very eyes. The choreography? Amazing (considering most of the time he dances like someone’s drunk, caucasian uncle at a wedding). The dedication to his performance? Unmatched. The vocals? Heavenly. He was born for the stage.

[rottenaero]

The parallels between Ronance and Steddie are crazy. Here’s two nerds that were on opposite ends,, one considered a priss and the other a band geek, who finally learn that you can’t know it all from a reputation. Then, with Steddie, you get a Jock and a super-senior metalhead who would've had no business hanging out with eachother.

Both hear praises of the other by mutual friends(Steve for Ronance, Dustin for Steddie)

And then, they finally meet for real and they're hesitant, but then they learn from one instance(The library and actually believing this light in the dark lead,, The drop of the oar instead of fighting) That they aren’t what they were made out to be.

And then,, of course Robin and Eddie trying to fix their relationship issues. Except,, with this Robin was trying to get Nance to open up with her problems, and Eddie was trying to push Steve to get back with Nancy.

Also theres like,, NO WAY they did those walking scenes without meaning for them to be parallels(If anything happens with Ronance next season then that basically makes Steddie canon hahah jkjk unless)

[vandalizingyourschool]

what have I got myself into

[rwby-confess]

Confession #157