Me, after forgetting to cut the top off an onion before dicing it: “Aw dammit”
The Gordon Ramsey that lives in my head: “Don’t worry there, this mistake isn’t going to ruin anything. No need to be too hard on yourself”
Me: “Wow, that’s…not what I was expecting”
Gordon: “Of course, you ought to know by now that I don’t shout at cooks just to do so. I do it because the people in hit television show Kitchen Nightmares are putting their services out into the public and claim to be good enough to have the title of head chef. You’re just some guy in your twenties making beef stroganoff for yourself and your roommate. I’m kind of a dick, yeah, but I’m not gonna scream at you for a minor mistake like this”
Me: “Oh….well…thanks”
Gordon: “You’re welcome…cunt…”
76K notes
·
View notes
One of the most heart-wrenching things that've ever happened to me occurred while trying to research the Super Paper Mario art style.
"Ohh what a beautiful and interesting art style! It is very distinctive! I wonder if anyone else has tried or wanted to try breaking it down and replicating it?" Obliviously, I typed in Super Paper Mario Art Style into my search bar... only to find many people calling it ugly and saying they hate it.
This simply could not be... permanent damage was done to my artistic soul.
No joy? No whimsy in this world? No love of computer graphics? Of a certain era of clipart? Of the art that was born from the computer and is difficult to replicate without one? Of the art made when this was something new and fascinating? No love for something unique?
Super Paper Mario don't listen to all those haters I love your geometric art style influenced by what shapes are easily drawn on a computer and the smooth mechanical interpolation within your animations. I love you. Also the music is banger.
469 notes
·
View notes
actually no wait holdup, I stumbled across some "Na'vi redesigns" recently, and while I don't want to make a stink about it on the actual redesign posts themselves because I don't want to antagonize the artists, who are clearly skilled in their own right, I do have something to say on the topic. While there is of course nothing wrong with re-designing characters or species for fun, there seems to be this condescending attitude surrounding Na'vi redesigns in particular, especially ones that make them significantly more monstrous/non-human, about how they're "better" than the canon designs for being less humanoid but....
y'all. Though there is a lot of cool speculative biology in Avatar, Avatar at is heart is not meant to be a speculative biology documentary, it's meant to be a story.
y’know, it’s interesting, there’s a section in Anomaly Inc’s epic eight-hour Avatar defense in which he’s refuting The Critical Drinker’s Avatar video. Paraphrasing a bit because I don’t want to dig through eight hours for this one line, but there’s a point where Critical Drinker says “if the Na'vi looked like this, or this, or this [showing images of much more monstrous alien designs from other movies], Avatar would be a very different movie”, and Anomaly Inc responds, “no actually, if the Na'vi looked like xenomorphs nothing in the plot would change, it would just be a whole lot less pleasant to look at.”
And you know what? They’re both right. Anomaly Inc is correct that giving the Na'vi a more monstrous design would not affect the plot itself, but Critical Drinker is also right (though perhaps not in the way he intended) that it would make Avatar a different movie. A WORSE MOVIE.
Yeah, I said it. Because plot is an important element to a movie, yes, but it’s not the only important element. Film is a visual medium, and therefore design is very important too, and it’s not arbitrary: the design of your characters should be used to support the story you’re trying to tell.
The story of Avatar requires the audience to empathize with the Na'vi. We’re supposed to be able to relate to them, to see ourselves in them. We’re meant not to see them as just “aliens”, but as people, because recognizing them as people emphasizes the wrongness of the RDA’s treatment of them. Blowing up the village of a clearly humanoid species is going to hit the audience much harder than blowing up the nest of scary-looking aliens, even if we know the aliens are smart and have their own culture etc. (not to say that blowing up the “nest” wouldn’t still be bad, of course it would be, it just wouldn’t invoke quite the same gut reaction in the viewers and yes that matters in a story).
A more monstrous design would not only not support the Na'vi’s narrative role, it would actively hinder it. Like it or not, general audiences would have a much more difficult time connecting with the Na'vi if they were depicted as hunched-over four-eyed hexapods with gaping jaws and the inability to make human facial expressions. Making them more humanoid makes them much easier to read and therefore to emotionally connect to. And no, Mr. Drinker, making your protagonists appealing to look at is not “lazy dirty manipulation”, it’s character design 101.
And don’t get me wrong, there’s certainly a place for more monstrous-looking sapient alien species in fiction! And if that’s your cup of tea by all means go nuts! Make that alien species! Flesh out their culture! That sounds awesome! I know I’ve definitely seen some cool and interesting ones out there!
….but I just don’t think that Avatar is that place. And that’s ok. There’s a place for “monstrous” aliens (sapient or otherwise), but there’s a place for humanoid aliens too, Avatar is the latter and there’s nothing wrong with that.
…all that to say, my stance on Na'vi redesigns is heavily dependent on the attitude behind them:
“Here’s a Na'vi redesign because I thought it would be a fun challenge and look cool!” Awesome, go for it, have fun! :D
“Here’s a Na'vi redesign because the canon designs are dumb and lazy and mine is way Better and More Original because it looks more like a movie monster, the filmmakers were so stupid for not making them look more like this, I’m just Fixing It” shut up
64 notes
·
View notes