/ot/ - Off-topic

For a moment I thought it was actually about rome and didn't understand why anything had to do with mexicans.

Anyway, checking wikipedia
>On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, Roma holds an approval rating of 98% based on 191 reviews, with an average rating of 9.3/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Roma finds writer-director Alfonso Cuarón in complete, enthralling command of his visual craft – and telling the most powerfully personal story of his career." On Metacritic the film has a weighted average score of 96 out of 100, based on 47 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".
>At the Toronto International Film Festival, the film was named second runner-up for the People's Choice Award. The film also won the Golden Lion at the Venice International Film Festival.

If what you say is true, then I'm really disappointed people claim it to be such a masterwork if there isn't even any character development or story to drive your interest in the film. Maybe I should watch it to judge it better, but it doesn't seem that appealing to me.

>>19642
If you've got two hours to spare, please do. As I was walking out of the theatre, it seemed like everybody had a negative opinion on it. Admittedly, most of the people in that small theatre were old and white. They complained about it being boring or too depressing. I love depressing stuff that's well executed, so I knew that wasn't the issue. The movie certainly has, "layers", here and there, especially with the Fernand/Fermind character, but a smattering of themes and symbolism does not a good movie make. Ultimately nothing significant changes, certainly not anything the audience is made to care about. Bit of easy, "emotional torture porn", here and there to try to wring out pity for a character we barely know.

>>19643
Also, if I had to compliment the movie on anything, it would be the cinematography. Lots of well done long takes and some good blocking. The Black and White effect was totally unnecessary and added nothing. The contrast between the silly tv shows and dloo,y, "reality", of the movie was a nice touch, but it just made me want to watch those shows instead. It doesn't actually make any kind of relevant statement to the rest of the film.

>>19642
this isn't something new critics do. critics have often praise films and music if it's culturally or politically relevant regardless of the quality of it. they also then get buttmad that the rest of the viewers/audience didn't like it and write embarrassing articles about how they don't like the viewer for having an opinion contrary to the critical view. critics/rotten tomatoes are usually jokes.

>>19668
this x 1000000

M,kay anon. Just stop using deviantart and it'll pass. This is a fetish that's totally disconnected from reality. It's like body horror mixed with rape and bdsm. I understand wher you're coming from, but this seems like a gateway fetish to stuff like inflation and animal transformation. Just try to jerk off to some normal rape and bdsm stuff. I'll even look at a sexswap doujin once in a blue moon, but I don't dwell on it or give it a super specific name like you. There's no term for magic sex switch or science sex switch for a reason. Do you have any hobbies?

It makes me sad knowing that, while humans can be such wonderful and complex creatures, thanks to my lack of communication skills and my general off-putting demeanor, I'll never be able to see more than their most shallow surface.
Well, no one truly will til the point when we invent mind reading devices, and most probably don't want to, either - that'd entail being exposed to plenty of unpleasant experiences. Not that realistic close relationships don't entail that, since one of the prerequisites, or maybe tests of a true bond is going through hardships together. But no one will most likely let me get even to that point.

On the topic of unpleasant human states of mind, though this isn't really a direct response to your post, on a conscious level I don't agree with the "demonization" of certain feelings or behaviours. In my opinion even some seemingly negative personality traits have merit to them, if only by making a person interesting. Being prone to "ugly" emotions like jealousy, fear, anger etc. isn't practical in daily life, true, but such traits don't exist in a vacuum, they're part of a complex picture that makes a person, with parts sometimes starkly contrasting one another, like you've said, and prone to change with experience. I remember being asked what my opinion was of an acquaintance, and getting a surprised and sort of disbelieving response when I said he "seemed sort of arrogant/smug, but clearly smart and cool." So apparently you can't have a positive opinion of a person if you think they're smug at the same time. Yet if he's arrogant, that means that he underestimates certain people, but then the things/people that he DOES value might have more worth than they do to regular people. What makes these things so valuable in his eyes? And what brought him to think this way? What kind of personal experiences has he had? Aren't these things interesting to think about?
A person at their lowest, one that's hysterically sobbing on the floor or locked up in a musty, dark room is interesting in a similar way, and makes me think 'what if I could help them out of their misery?', 'I wonder what they'd look like if i could get them to smile honestly at least once', 'what does a happy person look like after they've gone through this?' Basically, ugly things give more value to pleasant ones. And yet while I say all this, if someone is unpleasant directly to me or someone that I'm close to, intentionally or not, I usually get frustrated pretPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>19602
This is an interesting take on people, but i'm not really sure if the majority are actually messed up in any interesting way. Whenever I'm talking to people and being social, it's sort of like being another person. Even the way I think seems different when i'm in this mode. At first, this side of me was like a mask or facade, but as I got more comfortable slipping into this role, it somehow felt more real. To go with the eb and flow of conversation, to pick up on all the little things a person communicates, to cycle through the options of what you could say and eliminating anything inappropriate, this is stuff that some people don't even have to think about.

Maybe some people are perpetually in this mode unless forced out of it? It's like a default. I always like to sort of play dumb to lull people into a sense of security and reveal more to me than if I seemed opinionated myself. I like to get as good of a sense of people as I can. I just don't know if everybody is so complex. Even when I pick up on their insecurities or their little habits, I'm not sure how aware they are of themselves. Some people, especially kids, just feel like models in a production line.

Maybe there's just some irredeemable mental lines you can't cross that I've alreasy violated.
As for your question, it would depend on the feeling that person gave me. Maybe I would stay apprehensive, but I don't know.

I don’t believe personalities are the constant, inflexible shell that it seems to me most people accept it to be. What I’ve studied from sociology, animal rehabilitation, and even just from writing, just doesn’t allow me to see people that way.

The mind for me is possibly the most flexible, unstable, moldable muscle in the body. I believe what we perceive as “personality” is only a combination of cognition and reactions, that manifest our basic but amazingly complex animal adaptative skills, that we inherit genetically or developed through our lives. Very little traits of the personality are tightly rooted.

The contrast you describe I find it natural. Everybody is very unstable, is what allowed us to evolve so well as we did against our challenges. Our adaptative skills react to the world, to other humans, to circumstances, to hormones, to body sensations, to thoughts, to whatever synapses activate in our brain, to so many things. With so many stimuli influencing us, it must be difficult to stay immune to all. Having an inflexible personality might even be harder, everything may feel more challenging than necessary because you’re bad at adapting.

So everybody is constantly changing, some less and others more, some to better and other for worst. If your personality stopped adapting, if there weren’t any stimuli to read or react to, would you cease to exist? Would you become your real true self without outside and inside influence, or become an empty, unresponsive shell?

You can control this change, and cultivate or trim it as to guide it to your liking or your needs. It is a matter of how well you can manipulate yourself, your adaptability, and how much conscious you are to the stimuli.

I knew some terms for some of these things, but my memory for this kind of things is horrible.

I like xenomorphs, and if one became a cute monster boy that would be a dream come true. This aside, it would depend on a lot of variables.
Sorry for any awkward English or if I’m being out of context. It’s not my first language so some things are still a bit difficult to grasp.

>>19635
Just today I read an article about this sort of thing. As per usual, regardless of science and what's actually reality, society won't change the way it works. If a person murders your family, you're not going to forgive them because their current personality technically isn't the same one as when they killed them. That's an extreme example, but the same principle applies to most people. There's certain things they find irredeemable. When they meet a person they like, they just assume they haven't crossed that line in their head. Even I do that, so I guess it's another inherent part of people.

Get a new waifu, anon.

people died of cancer waiting for her to come home…miracle of the devil

>You mostly assume that people are honest and fair, however you are wary and hold back from trusting people completely. You believe that a certain amount of deception in social relationships is necessary. You are guarded in new relationships and less willing to openly reveal the whole truth about yourself. You do not particularly like helping other people. Requests for help feel like an imposition on your time. You are not adverse to confrontation and will sometimes even intimidate others to get your own way. You are not affected strongly by human suffering, priding yourself on making objective judgements based on reason. You are more concerned with truth and impartial justice than with mercy.
>Often you do not feel effective, and may have a sense that you are not in control of your life. You are a reasonably organized person and like to have a certain amount of routine in your life. You find contracts, rules, and regulations overly confining and are sometimes seen as unreliable or even irresponsible by others. You are content to get by with a minimal amount of work, and might be seen by others as lazy. You have a reasonable amount of will-power and are able to follow through on tasks that you feel you need to complete. You can be distracted however and have been known to procrastinate. You are not an overly cautious person. You will think about alternatives and consequences but make up your mind fairly quickly.
Here's the more recent report.
>Your Personality Type is The Designer (RIOGS) Designers are emotionally reactive, which means that they experience their emotions strongly and can be very passionate., however also have a higher tendency to experience emotions such as anxiety, anger and depression. Due to their independence and reserve, sometimes the Designer can be perceived as arrogant or unfriendly, however this is merely because they don't require the same level of social stimulation or interaction that others may seek. The Designer enjoys a good balance between the real world and fantasy, they are mostly aware of and in touch with their emotions. Being open-minded to new and unusual ideas helps them to interact with the world. With a healthy skepticism of the motives of others, and a belief in justice and being self made, sometimes the Designer can come across as guarded or intimidating. However the Designer has a refreshing impulsiveness about them, tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>Often you find the real world is too plain and ordinary for your liking, and you use fantasy as a way of creating a richer, more interesting world for yourself. You are reasonably interested in the arts but are not totally absorbed by them. Generally you are not considered to be an emotional person, however you are aware of and in touch with your emotions. You can tend to feel uncomfortable with change. As a person who is open-minded to new and unusual ideas, you love to play with and think about ideas. You also like to debate intellectual issues and often enjoy riddles, puzzles and brain teasers. Often you exhibit a readiness to challenge authority, convention, and traditional values. Sometimes you feel a certain degree of hostility toward rules and perhaps even enjoy ambiguity.
>You generally see others as selfish, devious, and sometimes potentially dangerous. You believe that a certain amount of deception in social relationships is necessary. You are guarded in new relationships and less willing to openly reveal the whole truth about yourself. You do not particularly like helping other people. Requests for help feel like an imposition on your time. You do not enjoy confrontation, but you will stand up for yourself or push your point if you feel it is important. You feel superior to those around you and sometimes tend to be seen as arrogant by other people. You are not affected strongly by human suffering, priding yourself on making objective judgments based on reason. You are more concerned with truth and impartial justice than with mercy.
This is pretty strange because I've actually become much better at talking to others and getting work done diligently. I also have a way thicker skin. Maybe I've become more honest with myself? Either that or I'm going crazy and getting better at hiding it.

http://www.seemypersonality.com/Personality-Report?x=PIx4x5833635-4979854xs4hj2x4

Well it's not wrong.

I took the test again. Apparently i'm less moral and driven to do work, but more social and open-minded. I don't know how much this is affected by self-perception.

Op here. I decided on watching Akira since I never got around to it before and it seems close enough to horror. Happy Halloween.

My neighborhood is always totally deserted outside. It's like a ghost town compared to developments. I don't think even one person took from the basket I put outside…

>>19566
I finished it. Akira might be the best action film ever made. I'd say its sort of like The Matrix, in that its very high-concept, except its better in every way. It's action and visuals are more interesting and impressive, and it doesn't water-down its concepts to be more accessible. Akira gets praise more for its merit, while the Matrix is praised because it's different and dares to make the audience think in an environment of total schlock. The Matrix is also somewhat(very) unoriginal and derivative. Even from a character standpoint, Akira is superior. Despite having a large cast and having little time spent just talking, even supporting characters are more fleshed out and compelling than Neo or Trinity or Morpheus(Cipher's not bad actually). The few talking scenes were poignant and moved the plot along in some way, while the Matrix indulged in longish, repetitive speeches that only served as exposition dumps or to indulge itself despite being in a visual media and having other options for communicating information. Akira came out more than ten years before too. The Matrix being far better remembered in the public conscious is a poor sign to me.

I liked the Matrix when I first saw it and that was only last year, so nostalgia didn't play any part in that enjoyment, but it didn't even come close to blowing me away enough to make me write word vomit like this.

>>19568
I'd also say Akira says a lot more about people, the way they perceive each other, and their relationship with authority and the government than the Matrix, which just alludes to the idea that what authorities tell people could be deceptive, and most people just extrapolate that the movie implied the government lies about so and so or just everything for nefarious purposes. The Matrix's 'best' theme of what reality actually means and whether it matters or not is hardly explored in a meaningful way(impacts characters and story). Again, most of the laundry list is only briefly touched on in some characters conversation. That's why Cipher and Anent Smith are the best characters and could potentially make for more compelling protagonists than what we got with the whole chosen one crap.

>>19592
Thank you very much.

>>19591
why are you writing this in off-topic? there is a Yume Nikki board for that

>>19594
sorry, i thought /ot/ stood for on topic

Moved to >>>/hikki/5262.

A couple more pics

It looks very interesting. Kind of psychedelic.

this looks really cool. i'm interested!

I'm going to go ahead and move this to the indie gamedev board.

Moved to >>>/ig/946.