Movie: Chronicles of Narnia: the Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Release date: 2010
Rating: Rated PG for action scenes, some scary scenes. People die too.
Synopsis
Edmund and Lucy, once known as King Edmund the Just and Queen Lucy the Valiant of the magical Kingdom of Narnia, are spending their English lives with their despicable cousin Eustace Scrubb. In no time, a magical picture comes to live and they find themselves on the ship of the great King Caspian, the Dawn Treader. Caspian is to find his father's lost companions and, if possible, even journey to the end of the world.
Pros: If you read the book, toss it out the window. The movie takes many of the book's scenes, but runs with its own new plot and deletes many cool scenes. For instance, you will never see Ramandu and you will spend no time with the Dufflepuds. However, the movie adds many very, very cool scenes, going more into depth with Eustace. The characters, especially that of Reepicheep, are especially memorable. The addition of a solid plot feels good, and the acting is pretty solid.
Cons: The CGI is still on the lower side, but passable. There really is nothing too fantastic about the sound, and you can tell very clearly where they cut parts of the book out. This makes some of the movie feel rushed and tight.
Best moment: The Sea Serpent. Crappy in the book, totally awesome in the movie.
Rating: 7.6/10
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
User status
One of the mods we had installed on Valucre earlier allowed for the users to give themselves a "status", that would be visible both on their profile and in the side panel display of their profile with every post made. After we updated the VBulletin core this mod wouldn't work anymore.
We found a new one that works with the updated version.
Valucre Status Updates
We found a new one that works with the updated version.
Valucre Status Updates
BBCodes
BBCode (Bulletin Board Code) is a markup language that message boards use to format posts. The tags are done in square brackets [like these] and then parsed (the text is analyzed basically) before being translated into a markup language that the browsers understand, which for Valucre is HTML.
BBCodes are how you bold and italicize, how you implant images and videos, and some other neat stuff. Now that you know what a BBCode is, in detail, you're probably wondering the kind of BBCodes available on Valucre. We have some pretty nifty ones, and the following link will detail most of them. Expect more to be added.
Valucre BBCodes
BBCodes are how you bold and italicize, how you implant images and videos, and some other neat stuff. Now that you know what a BBCode is, in detail, you're probably wondering the kind of BBCodes available on Valucre. We have some pretty nifty ones, and the following link will detail most of them. Expect more to be added.
Valucre BBCodes
Monday, December 27, 2010
Rosinder
For a while Rosinder's option in the Lore drop-down menu has been empty, and consequently leads users that click on it back to the homepage. Well just earlier today we (Damon and I, but mostly Damon) put together two comprehensive informational pages for the users at large. Below you'll find both the link and the introduction to Rosinder as a whole.
Valucre's Rosinder
Introduction
Rosinder was built with high and heroic fantasy, sword and sorcery in mind. It can be described as primarily medieval, its citizens engaged in a struggle to keep outside socioeconomic and magitechnological advances from intruding on their vaunted traditions.
Its place in the world, at the center of Tellus Mater, is particularly rich in arable land, which accounts for how common outside forces have attempted to invade Rosinder, which has only suffered from drought or famine from mismanagement of resources; its climate has no dry season. Most of the lands are politically divided into baronies, counties and duchies.
The nation is currently ruled by the House of Lords by both divine right of their lineage and popular vote, but the House of Commons allows for the first time a chance of direct compromise between nobles and the proletariat. However, the Republic is in its infancy and has yet to establish checks and balances against the accumulation of power.
With the House of Lords unanimously voting to restructure the military for aggressive expansion, Rosinder seeks to expand its empire across all of Valucre; the primary concern of its imperial march is to spare the world from its destruction by relieving people of their erroneous ways and showing them the glory of God.
Valucre's Rosinder
Introduction
Rosinder was built with high and heroic fantasy, sword and sorcery in mind. It can be described as primarily medieval, its citizens engaged in a struggle to keep outside socioeconomic and magitechnological advances from intruding on their vaunted traditions.
Its place in the world, at the center of Tellus Mater, is particularly rich in arable land, which accounts for how common outside forces have attempted to invade Rosinder, which has only suffered from drought or famine from mismanagement of resources; its climate has no dry season. Most of the lands are politically divided into baronies, counties and duchies.
The nation is currently ruled by the House of Lords by both divine right of their lineage and popular vote, but the House of Commons allows for the first time a chance of direct compromise between nobles and the proletariat. However, the Republic is in its infancy and has yet to establish checks and balances against the accumulation of power.
With the House of Lords unanimously voting to restructure the military for aggressive expansion, Rosinder seeks to expand its empire across all of Valucre; the primary concern of its imperial march is to spare the world from its destruction by relieving people of their erroneous ways and showing them the glory of God.
The Tourist -- 9 / 10
Being that this movie has Johnny Depp in it, it's almost instantly pushing a 5.0 rating, although that Public Enemy movie barely pulled that, just because he was in it. With this said, I believe his name -- lemme check... Ahh, Paul Bettany. I love this guy. <3 He's seriously one of my favorite actors, because he's always playing a STRONG secondary, much like Barry Pepper. <3
Anyways -- the movie! And why it got such a high rating!
Anyways -- the movie! And why it got such a high rating!
Well then, let us begin! The movie is twisted. It's got you thinking and you're always looking for who the bad guy is! It's so confusing. And so much fun trying to find it, and you're laughing the entire way through. It's extremely well done and in the end, you'll probably figure out what's going on, and then lose your way moments later.
Never sure until it hits you. <3
Synopsis: I can't say much without giving too much. Jolie's under surveillance and planning on meeting up with "Alexander" -- an old love, that stole a LOT from a gangster, who wants him dead. OOHHHMAN! Let the confusion begin!
Pros: Depp is hysterical. Great character. The storyline is awesome and the twist actually got me. Which I enjoyed immensely. I love a movie that can screw my perceptions, which are usually really good and on point.
Cons: It ... oddly enough, felt like it went by so fast. Lol. They could have added in another thirty minutes and you'd have never known!
Over-all: The fact that Jolie had her clothes on, makes me happy. I don't like to think of her as a slutty actress in her older years, but shit... if she's not naked, she doesn't sell as well. Lol. Depp is always great. The movie picked up a 9 / 10 on the Zenith scale, for twisting me up.
Secretariat -- 3 / 10
I had posted this on Valucre.com -- but this is one of my most LOLreviews, so I felt compelled to blog it.
DISCLAIMER: Loads of cussing.
Ha. Here's the extent of my displeasure: Story time!
So we're on the way to see a movie, that I didn't really want to see anyways, BUT -
1.) it was free
2.) it was to be a family thing.
Dad calls. He's not coming because there's "just not enough daylight anymore to get things done".
Sarah calls. She's not going to make it because she's out with Paula (bff) and they're dress shopping for Paula's soon-to-be wedding.
That leaves me, Heather, Beth, and Mom. =/ ...
Here's where you all get the slack-ass version of a boring movie because I physically cannot bring myself to actually post up a serious review.
Secretariat.
It's a movie about a fuckin' horse. The fuckin' horse stands fast at birth. And runs faster. Whoopdy-fuckin-do.
It's a Disney movie, also -- did I mention this? So you KNOW -- THE HORSE WILL WIN. 10 minutes into watching this.
If you knew NOTHING ELSE ABOUT THIS MOVIE AND THE FUCKIN' HORSE -- DISNEY DOESN'T DISAPPOINT. BAM. HORSE WINS.
FYI -- THIS ISN'T A SPOILER, IT'S RETARDED COMMON KNOWLEDGE TO PLEASE THE MASSES.
-- yes, yes -- it's a "true" story, still over-exaggerated like all Disney flicks.
So.
OMGFAMILYSTRUGGLE. DOES SHE CHOOSE THE HORSE OR THE FAMILY IN THE 60s?
NEITHER -- It's DISNEY. She fuckin wins it all. Takes the cake. The horse. The family. And the fuckin' movie.
There. I'm done.
If you wanna be bored for fuckin' 2 hours. Go see this movie.
Then -- you can kill yourself.
Rating: 3/10 - because the fuckin' horse was pretty. +3
-_- Fuck My Life.
Shrek Forever After -- 6 / 10
It's amazing what can be accomplished when you follow a script -- right, Meyers? It's no secret that Mike Meyers, while being a funny-man, has a bit of an issue with "ad-libbing" his scripts, which I [personally] tack to the failing fall of the Austin Powers series. The first was Lolerific and amazing, and down-hill from there. But we're not here to discuss that, we're here to discuss a ... hopefully ending trilogy quadilogy.
Ha - my bad. I stopped to watch the Season of the Witch trailer, as you'll most likely get a review for this coming Friday, but that goes to show how much I really cared about this film, lol.
Honestly, I swear -- I just changed the title cause I thought this was shrek 3. LOL!
So. The movie was actually pretty funny, but I wouldn't go all out and scream it to the world. The first was still my favorite so far, and the second/third whichever-- sucked. I don't think I even saw the third one, lol. I don't remember, I don't know -- but I felt this movie was good enough to throw-down on a quick review.
Ha - my bad. I stopped to watch the Season of the Witch trailer, as you'll most likely get a review for this coming Friday, but that goes to show how much I really cared about this film, lol.
Synopsis: Rumpelstiltskin or however the hell it's spelled, is back at his trickery again and originally tried to magically deed the entire kingdom to himself, by blackmailing the king and queen of Ever After. Yadda, yadda - he tricks Shrek and then the adventure begins!
Pros: Uhm, I suppose the plus would have to be the funnies. The world is switched around and Witches and Rumpel now run things, which is full of lols, and now apparently there are more ogres? Yeah, I know - wtf. Shrek is suddenly not as special as he once was. Lol. Way to go, DreamFail. =/
Cons: Uhm ... it's like the 4th or 5th one now? And they're not getting any funnier. Lol. The first was the best.
Over-all: Netflix. And I've lowered the rating twice since I started writing this review. Lmfao... Don't let all the negativity fool you. It's a kids movie, and it's pretty amusing.
Tron Legacy -- 7.5 / 10
Before people go questioning my rating, I have to say that taking in all the factors and the true-fact that this movie is made by Disney, you can't expect to be totally satisfied. Now if Legendary Pictures or James Cameron got a hold of Tron: Legacy, I'm almost guaranteed the rating would have been higher and for a solid purpose, than this fluffy 7.5 I've given it.
Well, let us begin! I have to start by saying Garret Hedlund and Olivia Wilde in the same film is worth at least a 6 / 10, and that's not suggesting that it's a porno, hahHAHhah! They really end up making the film excellent, and then the Daft Punk soundtrack, added to the graphics really send this movie up ... 1.5 points on the Zenith-scale of sexy.
Synopsis: The movie is about a man in the 80s, who's brilliant and creates this "game world" that turns out to be different than anything else before, but he vanishes. Gone. For twenty-some years, and suddenly, traces of him seem to be noted and the adventure for his son begins. To find his missing father.
Pros: The graphics are ... orgasmically gorgeous. The motorcycles. The jets. The world itself. It's a wonderful, and exciting adventure -- the world is beautiful. Olivia Wilde. She's beautiful. She's fun. And she can act. Sounds like my kinda woman! Lol. >_> @ -hides from his wife-
Cons: The Jeff Bridges graphical "Clu." REALLY, DISNEY?! A multi-f@#kin' BAZILLION dollar company, and you can't beat the graphics of Mass Effect or Final Fantasy XIV?! This is the SOLE reason, the movie wont make it above an 8.0 rating. Because of these cheap bastards and their fear of actually making a movie that might not have a happy ending.
The story was lacking, however - boy goes into world. Tries to save dad. Bad guy kicks some ass. You can't really develop a story around this... Lol.
Over-all: The movie was rated higher than it should be, because of great actors, because of beautiful graphics, and because the movie is awe-inspiring, however it left you wanting to see way more of the bikes and jets. Lol. Therefore, the 7.5 / 10 is deemed "fluffy."
Well, let us begin! I have to start by saying Garret Hedlund and Olivia Wilde in the same film is worth at least a 6 / 10, and that's not suggesting that it's a porno, hahHAHhah! They really end up making the film excellent, and then the Daft Punk soundtrack, added to the graphics really send this movie up ... 1.5 points on the Zenith-scale of sexy.
Synopsis: The movie is about a man in the 80s, who's brilliant and creates this "game world" that turns out to be different than anything else before, but he vanishes. Gone. For twenty-some years, and suddenly, traces of him seem to be noted and the adventure for his son begins. To find his missing father.
Pros: The graphics are ... orgasmically gorgeous. The motorcycles. The jets. The world itself. It's a wonderful, and exciting adventure -- the world is beautiful. Olivia Wilde. She's beautiful. She's fun. And she can act. Sounds like my kinda woman! Lol. >_> @ -hides from his wife-
Cons: The Jeff Bridges graphical "Clu." REALLY, DISNEY?! A multi-f@#kin' BAZILLION dollar company, and you can't beat the graphics of Mass Effect or Final Fantasy XIV?! This is the SOLE reason, the movie wont make it above an 8.0 rating. Because of these cheap bastards and their fear of actually making a movie that might not have a happy ending.
The story was lacking, however - boy goes into world. Tries to save dad. Bad guy kicks some ass. You can't really develop a story around this... Lol.
Over-all: The movie was rated higher than it should be, because of great actors, because of beautiful graphics, and because the movie is awe-inspiring, however it left you wanting to see way more of the bikes and jets. Lol. Therefore, the 7.5 / 10 is deemed "fluffy."
True Grit -- 7.5 / 10
Merry Christmas, everyone! It's your lovely neighborhood Zenith again, here to drop you a line on some of the movies that have come up during the past week or so, and as promised -- I've got your reviews! =]
So, let us begin!
So, for those looking at this movie and going, 'Oh, no way -- you can't replace the Duke!' I have mixed feelings on that phrase. Let's be perfectly clear on one thing: I respect John Wayne for his bad-assery, however his acting skills were a little ... hnm ... sub-par? Lol. Sure, he could be a bad-ass and shoot shit, but this is the era where acting talent is taken into account, not just the story. (See the Crash of Narnia, if you want a clear understanding of what I'm talking about. Lol.)
Jeff Bridges did an excellent job, and the movie was supposed to be geared at the book, not as a remake to another movie. Seeing him in this film, after having seen Tron, or Iron Man -- you'd have a hard time believing it was the same guy -- and that's the acting talent. I feel he did a really good job, and the movie had great excitement and laughs at his expense, as well.
Synopsis: Well, basically -- this girl's father is killed in an unfair transaction (she feels), and goes to claim his body and hire on a gun to find or kill the man responsible. She's a little shit and a total spitfire with a tongue that delivers lashings all throughout the film in the most brutal of manners.
And the hunt begins!
Pros: The new girl, Haliee Steinfeld -- nearly stole the show, if not did. I've never seen her in anything before this, but as a phenomenal role completed, I'm sure we'll be seeing her in plenty of new movies to come. She's sharp and seems to gather up the and be the role, better than most "child actors."
Sadly, that's really the only Pro I can list. Maybe throw out a pseudo-Pro, that this the first western I've liked in a while, lol. Since 3:10 to Yuma. <3
>> Edit: There is another pro that I just thought of, lol. Barry Pepper. I love this guy. I don't know what it is, but his characters are always so on-point an intricate that he ALWAYS seems to fit his roles, and he has that face that just melds into the part. <3 Much love.
Cons: Some of you might hate me for this, and don't get me wrong, I like Matt Damon, but ... he was the worst part of this film for me. After fanboying over the Bourne Series, and even Green Zone, I kinda enjoyed. But man ... I love the guy, but he's just a terrible western-style character. Lol. I don't know what it was, but his Texan accent was off, his character was funny and amusing, but ... oyie. Made me wanna get bit by a rattlesnake...
Over-All: I wouldn't recommend it to be seen in theaters, personally -- but that's my bias talking. It was a very well-done movie, but just not ... meh. 7.5 / 10
So, let us begin!
So, for those looking at this movie and going, 'Oh, no way -- you can't replace the Duke!' I have mixed feelings on that phrase. Let's be perfectly clear on one thing: I respect John Wayne for his bad-assery, however his acting skills were a little ... hnm ... sub-par? Lol. Sure, he could be a bad-ass and shoot shit, but this is the era where acting talent is taken into account, not just the story. (See the Crash of Narnia, if you want a clear understanding of what I'm talking about. Lol.)
Jeff Bridges did an excellent job, and the movie was supposed to be geared at the book, not as a remake to another movie. Seeing him in this film, after having seen Tron, or Iron Man -- you'd have a hard time believing it was the same guy -- and that's the acting talent. I feel he did a really good job, and the movie had great excitement and laughs at his expense, as well.
Synopsis: Well, basically -- this girl's father is killed in an unfair transaction (she feels), and goes to claim his body and hire on a gun to find or kill the man responsible. She's a little shit and a total spitfire with a tongue that delivers lashings all throughout the film in the most brutal of manners.
And the hunt begins!
Pros: The new girl, Haliee Steinfeld -- nearly stole the show, if not did. I've never seen her in anything before this, but as a phenomenal role completed, I'm sure we'll be seeing her in plenty of new movies to come. She's sharp and seems to gather up the and be the role, better than most "child actors."
Sadly, that's really the only Pro I can list. Maybe throw out a pseudo-Pro, that this the first western I've liked in a while, lol. Since 3:10 to Yuma. <3
>> Edit: There is another pro that I just thought of, lol. Barry Pepper. I love this guy. I don't know what it is, but his characters are always so on-point an intricate that he ALWAYS seems to fit his roles, and he has that face that just melds into the part. <3 Much love.
Cons: Some of you might hate me for this, and don't get me wrong, I like Matt Damon, but ... he was the worst part of this film for me. After fanboying over the Bourne Series, and even Green Zone, I kinda enjoyed. But man ... I love the guy, but he's just a terrible western-style character. Lol. I don't know what it was, but his Texan accent was off, his character was funny and amusing, but ... oyie. Made me wanna get bit by a rattlesnake...
Over-All: I wouldn't recommend it to be seen in theaters, personally -- but that's my bias talking. It was a very well-done movie, but just not ... meh. 7.5 / 10
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Romance Sideplots
They're everywhere, most prominently in movies and books. You have your hero who must take down a drug lord, kill the evil wizard, slay the mighty dragon, save the world... and have sex.
Yes, you read that right. He or she must, by any means necessary, get laid. Someone of the hero's opposite gender must wander in, eyelashes fluttering or abs flexing, and automatically spark the lust of our doomed hero. Never mind if it has nothing to do with the plot. Never mind if it derails it. Never mind if it is useless, stupid, contrived, or just plain disgusting.
Now don't misunderstand. I loved The Time Traveler's Wife. I loved PS., I Love You. I loved every sweet moment of every romance story. No, I'm talking about movies like The Sorcerer's Apprentice, The Oxford Murders, even that damn movie Piranha. These movies don't need, benefit from, and are entirely ruined by their romance subplots.
The Sorcerer's Apprentice: the hero is a young college guy who is chosen by fate, destiny, and the gods, along with Nicolas Cage's stern voice, to save the world. The hero dons the cape and... tries to get laid. Who cares about the world? He wants to put it all on hold so he can bang a girl older than he is and take her on dates and put her and everyone else in danger so he can get rid of some serious blue balls. Nice.
Piranha: admit it, the movie was cheesy and you liked it. The hero finds himself surrounded by hungry, hungry man-eating piranhas! He with his girlfriend in a boat underwater and time is running out! Surely he will waste no time in getting THE HELL OUT OF THERE. Right after giving her a romantic kiss, because everyone knows he's got all the time in the world as long as it contributes to a romance subplot.
The Oxford Murders: this one really got to me. Right off the bat the hero meets a girl, and right off the bat someone dies. Now there's murders going off left and right and the hero must solve the mystery. Of course, there's time for solving serial killer puzzles and a time for sex. So we're treated to a lovely shot of a girl wearing nothing but an apron, her fat ass in full glory for everyone to see, and then proceeds to have sex while dropping spaghetti over him.
First of all I hate spaghetti. My mom would cook it all the time and I can't stand the smell. I almost threw up with this disgusting scene. And let me tell you what she contributed to the plot; nothing. Seriously. She was there and then was gone. What was her purpose? Just a romance subplot.
Why do we have these things? To show how compassionate and human our hero is? Why? Show it in other ways. Give him a buddy. Match him or her up with a family member, a brother, a woman he's not immediately infatuated with. Show it in actions, not a lot of useless cuddling and sweet nothings murmured as you're getting devoured by zombies. Is it to add suspense? Bullshit. Unless it's a romance movie, you've got suspense in Godzilla or a runaway train or countless other sources, and the romance is just a distraction. An unwanted distraction.
Now with almost every movie and almost every book, there's got to be some kind of romance subplot. Get rid of them. Stop it. If it needs sex, make the first scene have the hero and his or her special friend boning, and then let me enjoy the rest of the damn movie.
Yes, you read that right. He or she must, by any means necessary, get laid. Someone of the hero's opposite gender must wander in, eyelashes fluttering or abs flexing, and automatically spark the lust of our doomed hero. Never mind if it has nothing to do with the plot. Never mind if it derails it. Never mind if it is useless, stupid, contrived, or just plain disgusting.
Now don't misunderstand. I loved The Time Traveler's Wife. I loved PS., I Love You. I loved every sweet moment of every romance story. No, I'm talking about movies like The Sorcerer's Apprentice, The Oxford Murders, even that damn movie Piranha. These movies don't need, benefit from, and are entirely ruined by their romance subplots.
The Sorcerer's Apprentice: the hero is a young college guy who is chosen by fate, destiny, and the gods, along with Nicolas Cage's stern voice, to save the world. The hero dons the cape and... tries to get laid. Who cares about the world? He wants to put it all on hold so he can bang a girl older than he is and take her on dates and put her and everyone else in danger so he can get rid of some serious blue balls. Nice.
Piranha: admit it, the movie was cheesy and you liked it. The hero finds himself surrounded by hungry, hungry man-eating piranhas! He with his girlfriend in a boat underwater and time is running out! Surely he will waste no time in getting THE HELL OUT OF THERE. Right after giving her a romantic kiss, because everyone knows he's got all the time in the world as long as it contributes to a romance subplot.
The Oxford Murders: this one really got to me. Right off the bat the hero meets a girl, and right off the bat someone dies. Now there's murders going off left and right and the hero must solve the mystery. Of course, there's time for solving serial killer puzzles and a time for sex. So we're treated to a lovely shot of a girl wearing nothing but an apron, her fat ass in full glory for everyone to see, and then proceeds to have sex while dropping spaghetti over him.
First of all I hate spaghetti. My mom would cook it all the time and I can't stand the smell. I almost threw up with this disgusting scene. And let me tell you what she contributed to the plot; nothing. Seriously. She was there and then was gone. What was her purpose? Just a romance subplot.
Why do we have these things? To show how compassionate and human our hero is? Why? Show it in other ways. Give him a buddy. Match him or her up with a family member, a brother, a woman he's not immediately infatuated with. Show it in actions, not a lot of useless cuddling and sweet nothings murmured as you're getting devoured by zombies. Is it to add suspense? Bullshit. Unless it's a romance movie, you've got suspense in Godzilla or a runaway train or countless other sources, and the romance is just a distraction. An unwanted distraction.
Now with almost every movie and almost every book, there's got to be some kind of romance subplot. Get rid of them. Stop it. If it needs sex, make the first scene have the hero and his or her special friend boning, and then let me enjoy the rest of the damn movie.
How to: Ignore user
This is a guide for anyone that doesn't know how to add a user to their ignore list. The ignore list is a handy feature that can solve a lot of inter-personal problems, as a person annoying you can go on your list and you never have to worry about reading their posts again. Ignore the trolls and leeches. Happy ignoring, Valucre!
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Tangled -- 8 / 10
| Maker - Disney
| Rating - G, most likely
| Synopsis - It's the story of Rapunzel, all over again. With an interesting twist that she's been grounded for ... oh, life. Evil "mother" finds a flower that extends her life if she sings to it, and the Queen of the land is dying -- out of fear for his unborn child and wife, the King cries out and the town goes to work searching for a miraculous golden flower that has healing powers. Evil mother tries to hide it, fails miserably, and thus -- the family is saved, but then the daughter is stolen! OhSnap!
Who knew that if you healed the wife, the kid would get awesome ever-growing hair that could never be cut and was so strong, she could use it like a bull whip, swing from stuff, and even tie people up! Right, how many little girls aren't going to cut their hair now... poor parents.
| Pros - Disney has finally found it's way back to the original classics, having floundered for SO long without their Disney Princess/Kids movie careers in check. After that evil crap they pulled with that voodoo creepster movie (it's currently 5:57am and I can't remember the title - their last film out that was animated), they haven't been on par with Beauty and the Beast, Mulan, or even close to epics like Sword in the Stone and Fox and the Hound.
This movie had it all. Humor. Cutesy-ness. Amusement. AND -- sing a longs that we all loved and enjoyed as kids. Finally, a Disney flick worth taking your kids to.
| Cons - It seemed to drag on a bit, but maintained the Disney short-and-sweet experience, even still. I know how I am, and with a mild case of insanity and A.D.D., this film had be sitting on my hands, for fear of staring at my watch. Although ... I am old. Lol. /le shrug/
| Exciting Note - The horse is awesome! I want one.
| Zenith's Approval Rating - A solid 8 / 10
Writing With Eachother - A Template for Successful Roleplay
As one of the official Chosen Tournament judges, I've overseen a fair share of T1 matches. One of the most difficult things to do when issuing a judgment is trying to figure out what's actually going on. This is due to the contradictions and paradoxes that occur when two players are writing against each other, something I'll get into in a moment. Because of the difficulty in understanding fights, we often ask the participants to supply us with a detailed list of actions that have occurred up to the contested point. Oftentimes, we find that the timelines don't even match. Why is this and what is going wrong?
This doesn't just happen in T1. A trend I've noticed among certain roleplayers is that they tend to write against each other as opposed to with. This, I think, is due to two reasons:
1. Ego - players want to be at the center of plots, so they're constantly fighting to be the center of attention. This also leads to a lack of accommodation, which can cause a clash of style.
2. Minimal Communication - This is especially noticeable in T1 matches. Players who frequently communicate seem to have the best synergy. If you know where the plot is headed and have a good idea of everything that is going on, you can make your post better integrate with the plot.
I know many people pride themselves on their writing and look at roleplay as a sort of writing exercise. This is good and a sentiment that should be facilitated and supported by the community. The problem lies in the fact that most threads read like a broken mash-up of events that seem to make little or no sense.
How is it fixed?
I don't have a sure-fire way to address the problem presented above, but I do have a few tips that may help those that wish to improve their literary relationship with other writers.
My first recommendation is to obviously drop the ego and communicate with your partners more. This should come as no surprise given the fact that I mentioned both of this issues above.
My second recommendation is to agree on the flow of time between posts with your partner. My intention here is to address the several temporal paradoxes that seem to arise when players fail to take time into consideration. If you're not involved in competitive roleplaying, it is advisable to give each player a certain amount of "IC" time with which they can play. Their post should be focused on their character's actions, but it can also address certain things that your character is doing.
The final idea I wanted to share has to do with the distribution of responsibilities. What I mean by this is that, in any given thread, you'll often find that a certain player takes on the responsibility of painting the setting, while another might describe major non-player actions. I feel that, for the flow of the thread, that it's important to share these responsibilities. The first post should always set the scene, but there is always more that can be described. Additionally, players can take turns controlling NPCs so to optimize the flow of dialogue and action. This, in my opinion, will provide the largest increase in synergy.
Leave some comments and tell me what you think!
This doesn't just happen in T1. A trend I've noticed among certain roleplayers is that they tend to write against each other as opposed to with. This, I think, is due to two reasons:
1. Ego - players want to be at the center of plots, so they're constantly fighting to be the center of attention. This also leads to a lack of accommodation, which can cause a clash of style.
2. Minimal Communication - This is especially noticeable in T1 matches. Players who frequently communicate seem to have the best synergy. If you know where the plot is headed and have a good idea of everything that is going on, you can make your post better integrate with the plot.
I know many people pride themselves on their writing and look at roleplay as a sort of writing exercise. This is good and a sentiment that should be facilitated and supported by the community. The problem lies in the fact that most threads read like a broken mash-up of events that seem to make little or no sense.
How is it fixed?
I don't have a sure-fire way to address the problem presented above, but I do have a few tips that may help those that wish to improve their literary relationship with other writers.
My first recommendation is to obviously drop the ego and communicate with your partners more. This should come as no surprise given the fact that I mentioned both of this issues above.
My second recommendation is to agree on the flow of time between posts with your partner. My intention here is to address the several temporal paradoxes that seem to arise when players fail to take time into consideration. If you're not involved in competitive roleplaying, it is advisable to give each player a certain amount of "IC" time with which they can play. Their post should be focused on their character's actions, but it can also address certain things that your character is doing.
The final idea I wanted to share has to do with the distribution of responsibilities. What I mean by this is that, in any given thread, you'll often find that a certain player takes on the responsibility of painting the setting, while another might describe major non-player actions. I feel that, for the flow of the thread, that it's important to share these responsibilities. The first post should always set the scene, but there is always more that can be described. Additionally, players can take turns controlling NPCs so to optimize the flow of dialogue and action. This, in my opinion, will provide the largest increase in synergy.
Leave some comments and tell me what you think!
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Merger + 100K break
Paragon, a roleplay forum owned and administrated by the user Sorano on Valucre, has joined the fray! Come and celebrate the successful merger of Paragon and Valucre. Also, thanks to the merger of Paragon and Valucre, we have tipped over the 100K post line. Celebrate that too!
Valucre's merger with Paragon.
Valucre's merger with Paragon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
