#why don't we concepts

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Battle sprites and extra content from my Dungeon Meshi RPG battle post!

[serpentface]

how do you come up with the ways cultures in your setting stylize people/animals/the world in general in their artwork, i.e. jewlery, rock carvings, statues, etc? Each culture in your world seems to have a very unique "art style" and I love it a lot - makes them seem that much more 'real'. This is something I struggle with a lot in my own worldbuilding and I'd love to pick your brain if possible 😁

I think a starting point is to have a research process based in the material realities of the culture you're designing for. Ask yourself questions like:

Where do they live? What's the climate/ecosystem(s) they are based in? What geographic features are present/absent?

What is their main subsistence method? (hunter gatherer, seasonal pastoralist, nomadic pastoralist, settled agriculturalist, a mix, etc)

What access to broader trade networks do they have and to whom? Are there foreign materials that will be easily accessible in trade and common in use, or valuable trade materials used sparingly in limited capacities?

Etc

And then do some research based on the answers, in order to get a sense of what materials they would have routine access to (ie dyes, metal, textiles, etc) and other possible variables that would shape how the art is made and what it's used for. This is just a foundational step and won't likely play much into designing a Style.

If you narrow these questions down very specifically, (ie in the context of the Korya post- grassland based mounted nomads, pastoralist and hunter-gatherer subsistence, access to wider trade networks and metals), you can direct your research to specific real world instances that fit this general idea. This is not to lift culturally specific concepts from the real world and slap them into your own setting, but to notice commonalities this lifestyle enforces - (ie in the previous example- mounted nomadic peoples are highly mobile and need to easily carry their wealth (often on clothing and tack) therefore small, elaborate decorative artwork that can easily be carried from place to place is a very likely feature)

For the details of the art itself, I come up with loose 'style guides' (usually just in my head) and go from there.

Here's some example questions for forming a style (some are more baseline than others)

Are geometric patterns favored? Organic patterns? Representative patterns (flowers, animals, stars, etc)? Abstract patterns?

Is there favored material(s)? Beads, bone, clay, metals, stones, etc.

When depicting people/animals, is realism favored? Heavy stylization? The emotional impression of an animal? Are key features accentuated?

How perspective typically executed? Does art attempt to capture 3d depth? Does it favor showing the whole body in 2 dimensions (ie much of Ancient Egyptian art, with the body shown in a mix of profile and forward facing perspective so all key attributes are shown)? Will limbs overlap? Are bodies shown static? In motion?

Does artwork of people attempt to beautify them? Does it favor the culture's conception of the ideal body?

Are there common visual motifs? Important symbols? Key subject matters?

What is the art used for? Are its functions aesthetic, tutelary, spiritual, magical? (Will often exist in combination, or have different examples for each purpose)

Who is represented? Is there interest in everyday people? Does art focus on glorifying warriors, heroes, kings?

Are there conventions for representing important figures? (IE gods/kings/etc being depicted larger than culturally lesser subjects)

Is there visual shorthand to depict objects/concepts that are difficult to execute with clarity (the sun, moon, water), or are invisible (wind, the soul), or have no physical component (speech)?

Etc

Deciding on answers to any of these questions will at least give you a unique baseline, and you can fill in the rest of the gaps and specify a style further until it is distinct. Many of these questions are not mutually exclusive, both in the sense of elements being combined (patterns with both geometric and organic elements) or a culture having multiple visual styles (3d art objects having unique features, religious artwork having its own conventions, etc).

Also when you're getting in depth, you should have cultural syncretism in mind. Cultures that routinely interact (whether this interaction is exchange or exploitation) inevitably exchange ideas, which can be especially visible in art. Doing research on how this synthesizing of ideas works in practice is very helpful- what is adopted or left out from an external influence, what is retained from an internal influence, what is unique to this synthesis, AND WHY. (I find Greco-Buddhist art really interesting, that's one of many such examples)

Looking at real world examples that fit your parameters can be helpful (ie if I've decided on geometric patterns in my 'style guide', I'll look at actual geometric patterns). And I strongly encourage trying to actually LEARN about what you're seeing. All art exists in a context, and having an understanding of how the context shapes art, how art does and doesn't relate to broader aspects of a society, etc, can help you when synthesizing your own.

[harbingersecho]

they had to pause their morning workout to drive wash to the ER at 7 am bc he somehow got hit by a car while getting mail. there's traffic. maine fiddles with the radio and carolina is imagining herself parkouring over the other cars

[uniiiquehecrt]

Voice actors are NOT the same as actors.

It takes a specific kind of skill-set and training to be able to warp and meld the voice. It takes a certain kind of talent and dedication to hone that talent into the ability to meld the voice and invoke emotion with one's voice alone. Actors are used to using their voice secondarily to their body language and their facial expressions. It's all mirrored back on camera. They do have nuance. But it's a different kind of nuance and a different kind of training to produce that nuance.

Voice actors might get their likeness transposed on their character's design, and maybe their mannerisms might seep into the character's animation. But when it's all said and done: their presence is in their voice. They are bringing a character to life, showing that emotion in their voice, trying to keep a specific accent, drawl, pitch, tone in that voice and keep it consistent for their recording sessions.

The voice actor is like a classically trained musician who can play first chair in a competitive, world-renown orchestra. The actor (who fills the voice actor's role) is like a moot who played violin in beginner and intermediate high school orchestra and thinks they can get into Juilliard with that 2-4 years of experience.

This doesn't mean that the HS orchestra moot can't play. They can even be really good at it. Maybe they won competitions and sat first chair. But they are not in the same league as the person who's been training their whole lives and lives and breathes to hone their craft using the instrument and all of the training they've ever acquired to perfect it. They are not meant for the same roles. They are not in the same caliber. You do not hire the HS equivalent when you want to play complex music in a competitive orchestra.

Actors are not the same as voice actors.

And furthermore, actors - especially big name actors - taking the roles of animated characters for big budget films or TV pilots makes no sense anyways when - at least in the case of TV pilots - there's not a point to hiring a big budget actors anyways. That money could be used elsewhere (like paying your animators), and the talent that is brought onto the screen for X character could then be hired on to voice said character no recasting required.

I wouldn't say voice acting as a profession is in danger exactly, but it's certainly being disrespected and overlooked for celebrity clout, and this has ALWAYS been an issue. Shoot, even Robin Williams knew that much - which is why he tried so hard not to be used as a marketing chess piece for Aladdin and got royally pissed off when it happened anyways. People shouldn't go to any movie (but especially not animated films) because "oh famous actor is in it". People should go because it's a good movie and the voice acting is good.

People who honest to god think that voice actors are replaceable because "oh well anyone can voice act" or "I like xyz celebrity so naturally it'll be good" ... Honestly I just wish you'd reassess your priorities because you're missing the point and are part of the problem.

Voice Actors ≠ Actors.

[volivolition]

DAY 4: DRAMA - Put on your prettiest face for the masses!

gonna start adding silly captions actually. [POINTS ACCUSINGLY] MELTY FUCK (AFFECTIONATE)!!

[rotisseries]

who wants to hear my absolutely stunning ideas for atla soap opera aus

[crookedfivefingers]

3.13 | ᴛʜᴇ ʟᴀꜱᴛ ᴏꜰ ᴛʜᴇ ᴛɪᴍᴇ ʟᴏʀᴅꜱ

link to the post I accidentally wound up prattling endlessly about in the tags 💀

[phoenixcatch7]

Reading loz/lu fics and it's just so interesting how wide the spectrum is of their personalities.

Sometimes it's got an in universe reason (different past (usually gender or species change), recent or ongoing traumatic events, a spectacularly bad first meeting), but sometimes (often) the characters are just... Weirdly angsty or peppy, there's no in between!

And I'm beginning to think less people have played more than one game than I thought XD.

Not that it's anyone's fault! One game is more than enough to be part of it all, and loz is exclusive to Nintendo consoles - and all the older stuff is frustratingly hard to get hold of. Heck, I'm still looking for wind waker, and that was really popular! And then you have to play it! They're not small games!!

But could people writing wild please ease off just a tiiiiiny bit so he can be a semi functional member of society pretty please XD? He's just as much a polite boy as any other member of the chain! He won't even run in shops! He can't attack npcs! He talks to every single person he's ever seen and remembers every single name. Yes, he's three quarters woodland creature with a hefty amount of trauma but he's also a fashionista who managed to avoid accidentally taking sides in a mayoral election and that's not easy!

[fallen-goldfishcracker]

hey fallen, what moment lives rent free in your brain? thanks for asking, i'll tell you!

we see very clearly that the collector doesn't see grimwalkers as people, this is expected, at this point I don't know if they see anyone as people.

but what i find fascinating is how Belos sees the grimwalkers. i'd always kinda assumed he didn't see them as people either (something something dehumanization and cycles of abuse and making so many he eventually stops caring about them even in his own, twisted way), but that isn't exactly true.

the collector calls them "those things".

Belos calls them "him".

in a way, i wasn't wrong. Belos doesn't see them as people, he sees them as a person. specifically, Caleb.

Belos has seen every single grimwalker as an extension of Caleb, not as their own people with individual thoughts and ideas and personalities.

yea it uh. messes me up a little.

[listen-to-the-inner-walrus]

If I could be arsed to learn how to edit videos and had some kind of mic, I would 110% make a two part video essay series on the politics of Jurassic World because MY GOD, there's so much to dissect.

The first part would be about how the park is the epitome of neoliberal futurism for techbros, including the way the park so easily falls apart though I doubt that aspect is purposeful. Everything is aesthetic first and function second, and we can't possibly use any of the reliable infrastructure we've already come up with because a train is not gonna get us to Mars, but a monorail might.

And the second would be about the buckwild terrible gender politics going on. The movie is deeply unsympathetic to Claire seemingly because she's a woman who prioritised her career as it's both centre to her character arc and also an inciting event of one of the plots. Not to mention the whole Zara thing or the Owen and Claire thing or the stupid "him, I meant him, line. The movie is rife with misogyny, but it feels like that specific misogyny was isekaied over from backlash to second wave feminism.

I could talk about it all for so long because in a way, it feels like a perfect time capsule for 2015. Back when people took Claire running in heels to be this feminist statement to be made fun of and not just a deeply misogynistic movie trying to sell you feminism. And back when Elon Musk managed to get away with his "I'm the real life Iron Man" shit, and people believed he was smart and all his plans would come to fruition. 2015 was a great time to be a tech bro in Silicon Valley with people just throwing money at all your fake promises.

Yeah. See. This is what I mean when I say I could talk about it forever.

[fromtheseventhhell]

"It's normal for siblings to fight" Okay well it's not normal to be extremely classist and look down on your sister for being non-conforming. Or to go to the woman who ordered the death of your pet to tell her about your father's plans, when he specifically warned you against doing so, because you want to marry the boy you saw attack your sister and her friend (contributing partially to said father's death and your sister being unable to escape on the ship he chartered). Or to think of your sibling as unsatisfactory in comparison to another when you believe her to be dead. I notice that none of the "Sansa and Arya are going to reunite and instantly have no issues" crowd ever acknowledge any of this, which makes it seem like they don't actually believe what they say about their relationship being normal and easily reconciled. People wanting them to have no issues simply because they're siblings is another example of how fandom likes to flatten complex characters and relationships. They get reduced to being bickering siblings when their conflict runs deeper than that. If the author is telling you that they have "deep issues" to work out [X], I don't understand being so adamant about ignoring said issues. I also get the sense it's about ignoring the capacity for a certain character to be flawed, but that isn't going to change the fact that her "slip of the tongue" is very likely to be revealed and a source of further conflict 🤷🏾‍♀️

[evilkaeya]

Chuuya loves Dazai's tummy. He goes a little insane every time Dazai stretches his arms and his shirt goes up a bit, giving Chuuya a long three seconds to appreciate the skin underneath. He comes home late one night and Dazai is passed out on the couch and his shirt is ridden up, tummy entirely out and Chuuya wants to scream and cry and punch the wall and then bury his face in Dazai's tummy and pass out also.

[the---hermit]

Not me adding annotations to a book to make it more accessible for my mom when she will read it

[sporkandpringles]

my problems with discovery's spore drive have nothing to do with the wacky mushroom science. Like this is Star Trek™ not some bonefide diamond on the Moh's Scale of Sci-Fi hardness like The Martian. I know to expect the writers playing a bit fast and loose with physics and how the real world works. I'm here for that wackniess, actually. Love me some technobabble about mycelial spores or tetryon particles or whatever! the thing that doesn't work for me is the way the spore drive acts narratively, and how the technology was introduced within the timeline of the series. Like it's just obvious that the writers aren't willing to let anyone else but Discovery have access to the spore drive. They twisted up the Glenn in season one, so Discovery is the only ship with a spore drive. They hemmed and hawed about genetic modification in season 2 so no one else got a spore drive. They purged records of the spore drive's existence from history and claimed that no one else had tried to make anything like it in 900 years despite a massive dilithium shortage and canonical search for other methods of propulsion in season 3. And then at the very end, just when you think, oh hey maybe the entire population of Kwejian will make for a nice crop of new spore drive pilots, the writers fucking blow up their whole planet just so they don't have to let anyone else have the spore drive. And to be fair, they can't really let anyone else have it, or else Discovery loses it's right to be "the only one we can turn to in a crisis". And that's really all it has going for it. So, I get it! Still hate it, though. And, even moreso than all the silly narrative contrivances that are used to nerf transporter technology so that the plot can still happen, this bothers me. Because sure, all the ion storms and interference can get a bit stupid. We all make fun of star trek for inventing a technology that could immediately yoink our blorbos away from their problems, only to turn around and force it to not work when it's needed most. But at least there isn't just one ship that has the ability to use the transporter at all. That would be ridiculous. Everyone would want their own transporter. And yet, that's the situation we have in Discovery. Only one ship can travel across the galaxy in the blink of an eye. The show writers keep contriving to keep it that way. And given how useful instantaneous travel is, the fact that it hasn't been replicated once, by any species in the galaxy, not just the Federation, in 900 years is just stretching the limits of my willing suspension of disbelief.

[cogentranting]

The Hunger Games succeeds (and more so achieves sort of mythic effect) because it approaches dystopia through the timeless-- it (and Ballad) brings these universal ideas to a very personal lens and asks questions like "how do we begin to excuse evil in our lives" or "how do you hold on to goodness in the midst of oppression". And because it is so invested in the transcendent it lends itself to very powerful symbols, which give it that mythic feel.

Orwell's books (Animal Farm and 1984) both succeed through a very different approach to dystopia (Animal Farm isn't really a dystopia in the traditional sense but it has a lot of the elements). Orwell succeeds through real perceptive insight into the inner mechanisms of the subjects of his critiques. Orwell has vision that can cut deep into the way that things like propaganda or 'controlling the narrative' work and then, having dissected them, hold those tactics up for all to see.

And I think a lot of dystopias fall short because they get tangled up in the Idea of their story. The "what if" they've created. Either focused too much on the Issue-- too narrowly to be universal, too broadly to be revealing-- or too disconnected from anything genuine. And because they get stuck at that particular point they don't have much more to offer than "wouldn't this be bad?" And if you get a pretty good writer they can make that feel insightful but really it doesn't have much more to offer than whatever absurd YA book comes to mind first when you hear "bad dystopian novel".

[princescar]

Crazy how despite Mikan's love for gory movies and blood, she doesn't do an over the top murder. She doesn't even do a medical themed murder despite it being the main focus of the chapter. (Only one of her victims was a patient and she just strangled her)

Crazy how, when she wants to commit a murder for Junko, she does neck trauma.

That's Yasuke's M.O.