#analog quality

[icep1ckkk]

me when i was 10

[funnybunnyfuzie]

Susan Woodings and Charles Brook, 1973 - “Post-Shift Smoke”

[mydearbasil]

A little something inspired by my love for analog horror!

[nooooough]

Date night

[tickfleato]

saw a fairly low quality and inaccurate house of leaves video and got so fucking mad that one of the comments said it "perfectly recreates the book but is much scarier" that i considered going through the book and listing every single inaccuracy before realizing that would make me an Online Guy

[gilears]

Time moves forward and only forward, relentless. Didn’t you learn last time? You can’t make it stop.

And when it has gone past, a sequel to Over & Through. Coming December 26-31.

[holdoncallfailed]

Mailer from the first official UK Beatles fan club to an American fan, including the initial club papers and an update from 1965, when her membership was first issued. + unaffiliated US-made Beatles trading cards. (via)

transcript available here.

[pink-dvrkness]

it’s too late now

[derpyk726]

Hey guys, I made drawings of the Three, for my analog horror au

[sme-esh]

A few Gabriel drawings I did

(old art)

[yagirlyubnub]

Something burning, something blue.

“New things always mean bad news…”

[icep1ckkk]

[jerseybones]

heeell nah man what the hell is this…….

[misssicknesss]

Old experimental rendered art of Alternate Gabriel I did one year ago (I will never reach the peakness of this art ever again)

[lacking-hydration]

Bo Baker (Dave Foley) - High Stakes (1986)

[david-talks-sw]

I'm reading through the book Star Wars on Trial and it's interesting. I completely disagree with almost everything I've read in it so far, but at least it's well-argued and written light-heartedly, it doesn't take itself that seriously.

The book is framed as a court hearing in which the prosecutor and defense attorney - both hilariously pompous and petty - debate their points and hear from witnesses. David Brin speaks for the prosecution, and Matthew Stover (author of the Revenge of the Sith novelization) speaks for the defense...

... and the thing is, I find myself disagreeing with both of them.

Example: Brin doesn't like or get the Jedi's rule of non-attachment, sees it as cutting off any and all relationships or emotions.

"In order to be a skilled and good and worthy warrior, you must cut yourself off from the very attachments that make a decent coworker, lover, spouse, parent and citizen. [...] One can understand demanding that a young adept avoid undue distraction while focusing hard on his training. But to cut off all thought of loved ones, even when they are suffering? Where is the "wisdom" in that?"

But when you look at his whole argument, at least it's clear that his real issue is with the narrative itself, he's disagreeing with (what he thinks is) Lucas' message regarding attachments.

What really surprises me, however, is Stover's response:

"One can hardly hold the Saga accountable for teaching that the "skilled and worthy warrior must cut off all attachments, etc." because this is explicitly defined in the Saga as the primary error of the Prequel-Era Jedi. With apologies to Opposing Counsel, he simply missed the boat here. That's all there is to it. Not only is that "cutting off all attachment" business defined as exactly what drives Anakin Skywalker to become Darth Vader, but it's precisely the error that Yoda is determined to correct by allowing Luke and Leia to be raised by real families."

His argument is "you misunderstood the narrative, the 'no attachment' rule is intentionally framed as bad."

I mean... no? It's not.

And, like... you know this @Matthew Stover. I know for a fact that you get what the whole "no attachments" deal is about and what the intended narrative is (not just because you spent an afternoon talking to George Lucas), because I've seen you explain it:

What he says in the above video perfectly aligns with the many comments Lucas made on the subject of attachment.

So what's with the 180° in Star Wars on Trial?

And, btw, that's how the whole book goes, so far.

First, the prosecution will nitpick by ignoring or misinterpreting the intended narrative, and point out something they don't like about the Prequels, eg: the Jedi as retroactively reframed by the Prequels, heartless, detached and callous.

The defense (who should know the narrative) will counter with "you're missing the point, it's supposed to be perceived badly because:

the Prequels are actually this subversive commentary about how the good guys are actually not that good,

Anakin was destined to wipe the Jedi out and the Sith to bring Balance to the Force

the Jedi's rules are dogmatic and Luke triumphs because he rejects them."

Instead of defending the message of the movies and standing up for it, he clearly implicitly agrees with the prosecution's argument and thus reframes the message by stating that the films actually agree with what the prosecution is saying.

Again, the arguments are interesting and well-researched in some cases, and I get that the whole book is playful in tone (the judge is a friggin' droid for crying out loud 😆) but I feel like if you're gonna defend your client, defend the damn client, right?