TheRPGSite

We all know that, Bradford et al. have driven home the point tirelessly, but IIRC we haven't discussed in detail how come it's valid.

What are the elements of a crappy novel or movie that work in a game but fizzle in the source? More importantly, why is it that they do work at all rather than fizzle as well?

I'm not talking merely about straight-up licenses BTW.

Mainly because ham acting is fun, and in a few hours of rolling dice and eating cheetos you usually can't manage much more than cliches.

And bad novels and movies are often bad because they have ham acting (or otherwise stupid characters) and lots of cliches.

A friend of mine INSISTED on bad novels being way better for gaming than good ones. he even held panels on what he called "Verspielungen". The argument was based on the assumption (and experience), that cheesy stuff isn´t that cheesy in RPGs anymore. And that the players actions remove the idiocy from idiotic plot constructs. And that the conflicts of bad novels are also worthwhile oftentimes, only the solutions suck. But that´s what the players are there for.
Also, the badness of a novel prevents emotional engagement, which in turn minimizes the dangers of "scene reenacting/emo wankery/ romanticism".

I participated in some of his "Verspielungen", the one on "Cachalot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cachalot_%28novel%29)" and "The Practice Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Practice_Effect)" were particularly noteworthy.

Quote from: SettembriniAlso, the badness of a novel prevents emotional engagement, which in turn minimizes the dangers of "scene reenacting/emo wankery/ romanticism".

A most excellent point.

In general, your friend seems to be right on the money. A bad novel/movie offers less creative resistance to creative appropriation. In part that means its elements (stereotypes, tropes) are more easily extracted, altered, and combined with others.

Obviously, AD&D leaps to mind as the supreme example, although not all its sources were bad.

Quote from: SettembriniA friend of mine INSISTED on bad novels being way better for gaming than good ones. he even held panels on what he called "Verspielungen". The argument was based on the assumption (and experience), that cheesy stuff isn´t that cheesy in RPGs anymore. And that the players actions remove the idiocy from idiotic plot constructs. And that the conflicts of bad novels are also worthwhile oftentimes, only the solutions suck. But that´s what the players are there for.
Also, the badness of a novel prevents emotional engagement, which in turn minimizes the dangers of "scene reenacting/emo wankery/ romanticism".

I participated in some of his "Verspielungen", the one on "Cachalot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cachalot_%28novel%29)" and "The Practice Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Practice_Effect)" were particularly noteworthy.

Your friend's opinion has merit, but let's remember that what is good for a novel is not necessarily good for a RPG, and what is good for an RPG is not necessarily good for a novel.

I have no idea how this nonsense started. I suspect it was when TSR began churning out it's fantasy novels and the scorn heaped by some on them. In the old days it was all about emulating Howard, Lieber and Tolkien amongst others. For SF you had Heinlein , Asimov, Herbert and the various other SF writers.

Nobody thought their games emulated "good" novels or even that their games were some how cheesy....unless they wanted their games to be cheesy. And since fantasy movies were more or less non existent you had a few SF movies to choose from - Star Wars (space opera but still), 2001, Bladerunner....

Maybe it's a geek thing I'm clueless about. Needless to say this by Sett:

QuoteAlso, the badness of a novel prevents emotional engagement, which in turn minimizes the dangers of "scene reenacting/emo wankery/ romanticism".

Sounds cool and all, but in reality means nothing. And it reeks of elitism.

What's a bad novel and does he seriuosly think that it's fans (who are most probably gamers and choose to emulate it) are not emotionally engaged with the material ?

Regards,
David R

I'm with David R here. My players have had a blast from good inspiration as well as bad. It doesn't matter in the least. The contention that bad sources are better is wrong. Bad sources and good sources can be equally engaging. What matters in this case is the group, not the source.

-clash

Here's why I think the point often comes up: if you take inspiration from a really kick-ass source, and end up with something less enjoyable than the source (and the better the source is, the more likely this is - you really think 5 guys improvising and rolling dice at a table are going to outdo, say, Star Wars or Macbeth or Conan?), it feels like a failure. On the other hand, if you take inspiration from cruddy source material, and end up with something more enjoyable, it feels like a success.

Quote from: David RI have no idea how this nonsense started.

I have a hunch that it has to do with people comparing the results at the table to a well written/exectuted book/movies/whatever and saying "well that game session didn't measure up". Becoming self conscious about not churning a duplicate in quality [most of the time?] could be a source of it? :shrug: Silly given that gaming is just a rough first pass and "classics" hardly spring from the mind of the creator full formed and polished. EDIT: D'oh, Warthur beat me to it.


P.S. Ironically many "bad" books often reek of said "wankery" and overwrought "emo" and such. Maybe a lot of people are looking for or expect the same in their gaming? :eek: :deflated:

Quote from: WarthurHere's why I think the point often comes up: if you take inspiration from a really kick-ass source, and end up with something less enjoyable than the source (and the better the source is, the more likely this is - you really think 5 guys improvising and rolling dice at a table are going to outdo, say, Star Wars or Macbeth or Conan?), it feels like a failure. On the other hand, if you take inspiration from cruddy source material, and end up with something more enjoyable, it feels like a success.

We emulate everything from Shakespeare to Big Trouble in Little China to Hornblower to Cherryh and back again. We almost never fail. The games rock, we have a blast, and somehow things work. It's the group.

-clash

Quote from: DwightI have a hunch that it has to do with people comparing the results at the table to a well written/exectuted book/movies/whatever and saying "well that game session didn't measure up". Becoming self conscious about not churning a duplicate in quality [most of the time?] could be a source of it? :shrug: Silly given that gaming is just a rough first pass and "classics" hardly spring from the mind of the creator full formed and polished. EDIT: D'oh, Warthur beat me to it.


P.S. Ironically many "bad" books often reek of said "wankery" and overwrought "emo" and such. Maybe a lot of people are looking for or expect the same in their gaming? :eek: :deflated:

Hi Dwight:

Maybe our group has a blast because we don't consider the endproduct to be a story to compare with the source? We compare the fun of the doing, the experience. Playing in the world of Hornblower kicks utter ass over reading or watching it, no matter the story that results. That's a byproduct of our play, nice to have but really just gravy.

-clash

I think it just means "well-defined, uncomplicated external conflicts - like those found in bad books and movies - make better gaming sessions than the sorts of complex, nuanced situations you might expect in other types of literature."

There's a germ of truth there, but like most things it falls apart if you try and follow the analogy too far. There's also an assumption about good and bad books/movies that doesn't necessarily stand up.

Ned

This is actually JDCorley's Law of Licensed Gaming: "Bad source material means good gaming".

It does not say anything about good source material meaning bad gaming, good gaming, or anything. It also doesn't say that good gaming means bad source material. So just throw that nonsense out, it is not implied at all and you are stupid if you think it does.

Here is the rationale. It's the same explanation I gave to the virtuous young hippies at story-games, now I give it to the he-man woman-haters here at Therpgsite.

1 - Good source material (film, books, comics, etc.) combines characters, plot, setting, and presentation in such a way as to be compelling and interesting.

2 - Contrariwise, bad source material has some element on that list that doesn't work, either in isolation or in combination with other elements on that list.

3 - When you game, you are devastating, destroying, rending, blasting, and eradicating some part of the original work and replacing it with something of your own. (Since the work is the sum of its parts, actually you are destroying the whole thing, but we'll pretend not to notice this for now.)

4 - If you destroy something bad, that improves the overall quality.


Now, I usually follow this up by saying "For example, Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a rotten TV show, but is a kickass gaming setting." and everyone spends 50 pages yelling at me about what a great TV show Buffy was. The nice thing, though, is that the principle still works no matter what properties you think are good and which you think are bad, so long as you are the one doing the demolishing and adapting.

Quote from: flyingmiceMaybe our group has a blast because we don't consider the endproduct to be a story to compare with the source?

Why is it always about 'story' with you? ;) I was thinking about the prose and dialog. But sure, I suppose that's another thing you could worry about comparing.

P.S. Frankly I just get a game with solid mechanics that fit the game/genre we want to play,  stick with the mechanics, and make sure to keep feeding conflict in an appropriate tone, and any 'story' to be had works out. In my experience it is when somebody has the plot already mapped and written in their head and unnaturally fights the rules and the other players to get there that you have problems with plot. *shrug*

Quote from: DwightWhy is it always about 'story' with you? ;) I was thinking about the prose and dialog. But sure, I suppose that's another thing you could worry about comparing.

P.S. Frankly I just get a game with solid mechanics that fit the game/genre we want to play,  stick with the mechanics, and make sure to keep feeding conflict in an appropriate tone, and any 'story' to be had works out. In my experience it is when somebody has the plot already mapped and written in their head and unnaturally fights the rules and the other players to get there that you have problems with plot. *shrug*

Sounds pretty much like my group! :D

But I meant story=plot+dialog+prose, not just plot. :P

When my players talk about old games, they bring up stuff like "Remember the time we brought that headless body into Captain Morgan's office in Port Royal and dumped it on his floor, and instantly got into that argument in character about whether the corpse was mutilated or not just because it was headless, until Captain Morgan screamed 'This is a public office, not an argument chamber!'" If you were there, it was absolutely hilarious. It doesn't translate well to plot+dialog+prose. :D

-clash

Quote from: David RMaybe it's a geek thing I'm clueless about.

There are many, many things you "are clueless about," bucko.

This includes your misguided opinion--stated in that passive-aggressive whining tone which countermands what's left of your feeble effort to pass for this board's voice of reason, tolerance and common sense--that gaming circa 1980 was about "emulating" novels.

1) It wasn't.

2) The term "emulation" is a) a pretentious, cop-out mantra from b) a later era.

3) Yes, Virginia: There are indeed good and (gasp) bad books, movies, bands, artworks. The horror.

Quote from: flyingmiceIt doesn't translate well to plot+dialog+prose. :D

In a professional writer's hands it might. ;)  Stuff coming out of games is more like the raw material of such.

I will say though that I've played with a couple people that have a real gift for the gab. To wrap things up an eloquent bow. It's nice. Me, not so much. Like last night I stood up and mimed slapping my ass cheek crying out "I'm so pretty, I'm so pretty, I'm so pretty"...it was about a Tolkien-esque elf.  It was a goofy moment. It was funny if you were there. No really. :o

I think the "good" and "bad" descriptors are not so much about a work's final quality but initial intent. It's George Orwell, I think, who discuesses this separation, and the business of "good bad novels, bad bad novels, bad good novels and good good novels" in his essay on detective fiction (is it? I forget. Maybe it's G K Chesterton.)

If you take that definition of "bad" then I think, yes, there's some validity in the idea.

Ned

Quote from: DwightIn a professional writer's hands it might. ;)  Stuff coming out of games is more like the raw material of such.

Well I am a professional writer, as I write technical manuals, but not a professional novelist... It doesn't help. :D

QuoteI will say though that I've played with a couple people that have a real gift for the gab. To wrap things up an eloquent bow. It's nice. Me, not so much. Like last night I stood up and mimed slapping my ass cheek crying out "I'm so pretty, I'm so pretty, I'm so pretty"...it was about a Tolkien-esque elf.  It was a goofy moment. It was funny if you were there. No really. :o

Hahaha! That sounds like the sort of stupid stuff that happens at my table! They are all so witty and amusing at the time! :D

-clash

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyI think the "good" and "bad" descriptors are not so much about a work's final quality but initial intent.

I'm not sure I understand what this means. I hope it's not "the effort counts." Because, well, it does not. What's a good good bad bad etc. novel?

It's so weird...I watch 2 to 4 horrible movies every Saturday night with my girlfriend and some local pals. And we want to do 1-shots vaguely based on half of them...it really is scary.

I agree with the reduced expectations theory. Sure, some of us are theater people, but we don't see roleplaying as a craft - it's a way to have fun and crack up over our antics.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThere are many, many things you "are clueless about," bucko.

This includes your misguided opinion--stated in that passive-aggressive whining tone which countermands what's left of your feeble effort to pass for this board's voice of reason, tolerance and common sense--that gaming circa 1980 was about "emulating" novels.

1) It wasn't.

2) The term "emulation" is a) a pretentious, cop-out mantra from b) a later era.

3) Yes, Virginia: There are indeed good and (gasp) bad books, movies, bands, artworks. The horror.

Poor Pierce, I guess rushing to be Sett's dictionary has taken it's toll.  

1) Really? So nobody in the old days (and now) were inspired/based their games on the novels I mentioned.

2) a) *shrug* depends on what you trying to emulate b) probably but that does not mean is was not going on in practice at an earlier time

3) Yes sweetheart and that's the point. It's not that bad novels/movies make for good gaming. Source material is irrelevent.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWe all know that, Bradford et al. have driven home the point tirelessly, but IIRC we haven't discussed in detail how come it's valid.

What are the elements of a crappy novel or movie that work in a game but fizzle in the source? More importantly, why is it that they do work at all rather than fizzle as well?

I'm not talking merely about straight-up licenses BTW.

Many reasons.

One reason would be that bad art works in RPGs because it can be analysed and used more readily than great art. Great art often is often loved for very complicated reasons and requires us to exercise much of our mind in considering and enjoying it, while bad art requires only a portion of our minds, can be picked apart without doing serious violence to the whole. Because we can readily understand it, and readily deploy the elements we enjoy, it can be integrated into our worlds and our stories more easily.

For example, it's very easy to tell a Star Wars story without Han, Luke, or Leia because we can break apart the Star Wars story into the world and its style, the characters, the metaphysics, etc. and treat each of them separately very easily On the other hand, try breaking apart say, Gravity's Rainbow or Beowulf into such categories without just making a mess of it.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI'm not sure I understand what this means. I hope it's not "the effort counts." Because, well, it does not. What's a good good bad bad etc. novel?

Orwell deals with this distinction several times, especially in his consideration of Kipling's poems, Boy's Adventure Stories, and Chesterton. It's not really germane to the topic at hand, though. Orwell wants to distinguish technical skill, subject matter, political leanings and effectiveness from one another, and argues that a work that is good or bad in one or several of these areas may be the opposite in others.

For example, he thinks that Kipling has excellent style and that his poetry is very effective in causing the reader or listener to feel the emotions Kipling wishes them to, but because Kipling is a Colonel Blimp-style imperialist who seeks to arouse childish sentiments, he is a "good bad poet" - he has a masterful command of the skills and ideas required to be a hack for power.

Oh, so it's just ye olde form/content dichotomy? Enh.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThis includes your misguided opinion--stated in that passive-aggressive whining tone which countermands what's left of your feeble effort to pass for this board's voice of reason, tolerance and common sense--

Don't be a pussy, Pierce. If you want to call some a cocksmock, just come out and do it. Leave that "passive-aggressive" nonsense on rpg.net's Tangency where it belongs.

On topic, I still say that since most game sessions are not artistic masterpieces, the things that make bad fiction bad - overacting and cliches - are precisely the things that make a good game session fun. Not memorable or meaningful, perhaps, but fun.

As others have said, that does not mean that good fiction can't also inspire good gaming, gaming which is fulfilling as well as fun.

Quote from: Kyle AaronDon't be a pussy, Pierce. If you want to call some a cocksmock, just come out and do it. Leave that "passive-aggressive" nonsense on rpg.net's Tangency where it belongs.

That's precisely what I told David R, pudding head.

QuoteOn topic,

On topic, you're a pudding head.

I mean the accusation of being passive-aggressive should remain on rpg.net's Tangency. Thus the quotation marks.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat are the elements of a crappy novel or movie that work in a game but fizzle in the source? More importantly, why is it that they do work at all rather than fizzle as well?

I think some things that don't work so well in novels work well in RPG's:

1) Serial fiction -- most novels and movies are fairly contained (even Stephen King tomes), but RPG's can run episode-to-episode indefinitely. Long-running games are better modeled as TV-shows or old fashioned serials.

2) Formula & Genre -- These can help people get quickly and accurately engaged in the game fiction. In novels, they're often viewed as a crutch or the result of insufficient creativity but RPGs generally require everyone to collaborate improvisationally and genre / formula give a well-defined framework for that. I'll note that I think formula and genre get a bad rap from the lit crowd; I don't think they automatically make a novel, movie, or game bad... but I'm probably a minority opinion.

3) Character stereotypes -- Same as above, but I'd recommend being more careful with these. Having the inn keeper be a cardboard cut out of every inn keeper everywhere would be painful in a novel, but in a game it's a useful key that we don't need to spend too much time interacting with him. Overuse of this kind of thing though leads to a rather cardboard feeling game.

4)  Action as a substitute for characterization -- In movies (especially) action scenes tend to be wholly external so you only get to see what the character does. In RPG's (and, to an extent, in novels), you can get a pretty good idea about motivations, etc. during combat and action. Clearly this can work in books and movies and can fail in RPGs, but I've found it works better in RPG's than I had expected.

That's a few quick thoughts.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineFor example, he thinks that Kipling has excellent style and that his poetry is very effective in causing the reader or listener to feel the emotions Kipling wishes them to, but because Kipling is a Colonel Blimp-style imperialist who seeks to arouse childish sentiments, he is a "good bad poet" - he has a masterful command of the skills and ideas required to be a hack for power.

That is what Orwell says, but it's not why he calls Kipling a 'good bad poet'. The badness lies in the vulgarity of his expression ('most of Kipling's verse is so horribly vulgar that it gives one the same sensation as one gets from watching a third-rate music-hall performer recite "The Pigtail of Wu Fang Fu" with the purple limelight on his face'). On the other hand, Orwell claims that Kipling did actually write some good lines ('and yet there is much of it that is capable of giving pleasure to people who know what poetry means'). So it's not actually as simple as form vs. content.

I was thinking about the article on detective novels, too. And if it helps the reactionaries, think of it as a spectrum rather than discrete boxes. At one end is Raiders of the Lost Ark (BAD), at the other is Last Tango in Paris (GOOD). They're both great movies, but Raiders concerns itself largely with action and adventure. It has easiliy identified villains, clear goals for the hero and simple resolutions. That's easily gamed! Last Tango in Paris doesn't have any antagonist, and the conflict is entirely internal. That would be a tough one to stat up in trad RPGs (I'm sure there's an indy game somewhere that'd do it).

That's what I'm getting at, and what I think the thread title means. As with all these things, I'd say it's a useful rule of thumb rather than a commandment from on high. And apologies to Old George if I'm mangling his dichotomy.

Ned

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyI was thinking about the article on detective novels, too. And if it helps the reactionaries, think of it as a spectrum rather than discrete boxes. At one end is Raiders of the Lost Ark (BAD), at the other is Last Tango in Paris (GOOD). They're both great movies, but Raiders concerns itself largely with action and adventure. It has easiliy identified villains, clear goals for the hero and simple resolutions. That's easily gamed! Last Tango in Paris doesn't have any antagonist, and the conflict is entirely internal. That would be a tough one to stat up in trad RPGs (I'm sure there's an indy game somewhere that'd do it).

That's what I'm getting at, and what I think the thread title means. As with all these things, I'd say it's a useful rule of thumb rather than a commandment from on high.

Maybe at one end there's Raiders and on the other there's King Solomon's Mines (with Richard Chamberlin & Sharon Stone). The former is a "good" movie and the latter a "bad" one. Now both are gameable using the criteria you put forward. But does the latter necesarily make for good gaming. Well yes and so does the former. So it's really not about source material is it ? I mean Last Tango is clearly not a "game" movie although I'm sure one could adapt characters and themes from it.

Kyle makes a good point about bad acting and cheesy plots. But then shouldn't the question be - Why does gaming read like bad novels or seem like bad movies ?

Regards,
David R

QuoteBut then shouldn't the question be - Why does gaming read like bad novels or seem like bad movies ?

I have some thoughts on that, but it's probably safer to blame Gary Gygax.

Quote from: David RKyle makes a good point about bad acting and cheesy plots. But then shouldn't the question be - Why does gaming read like bad novels or seem like bad movies ?

Because most people - gamers or not - are terrible actors, unable to convey subtle ranges and mixtures of emotion and ideas. So they just ham it up.

The cliches are a bit different. That depends on the mood at the game table. Some are people are fairly serious about their gaming, some are light-hearted and crack lots of jokes. I'd say that even if just one person at the game table is taking it lightly and is talkative (rather than quietly light-hearted) then it spreads across the whole game table, people joking and laughing. And I think that light-hearted is most common. "It's just a game." So to get any strong reaction you have to use cliches. Nuanced layers of meaning won't do it.

Put bad acting and "it's just a game" together, and you get ham acting and cliches, which are as I said the basis of bad movies. But can make for a fucking good game session.

Quote from: David RMaybe at one end there's Raiders and on the other there's King Solomon's Mines (with Richard Chamberlin & Sharon Stone). The former is a "good" movie and the latter a "bad" one. Now both are gameable using the criteria you put forward. But does the latter necesarily make for good gaming. Well yes and so does the former. So it's really not about source material is it ? I mean Last Tango is clearly not a "game" movie although I'm sure one could adapt characters and themes from it.

You're misapprehending what's meant by good and bad here. It's nothing to do with the quality of the finished piece. It's essentially high art vs low art: cheesy genre stuff yields more gameable situations than literary works. This is becuase cheesy genre stuff focuses on easily defined external threats, while literary works tend to focus on internal conflicts that are not easily gameable.

You could run the plot of Raiders with virtually any mainstream RPG out there. The cannot be said of The Last Tango in Paris.

Ned

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyYou're misapprehending what's meant by good and bad here. It's nothing to do with the quality of the finished piece. It's essentially high art vs low art: cheesy genre stuff yields more gameable situations than literary works. This is becuase cheesy genre stuff focuses on easily defined external threats, while literary works tend to focus on internal conflicts that are not easily gameable.

You could run the plot of Raiders with virtually any mainstream RPG out there. The cannot be said of The Last Tango in Paris.

Ned

No, he's not misapprehending. He's adding a different axis of "good-bad". Think Lawful-Chaotic vs. Good-Evil. He's pointing out that there are "good" and "bad" movies - even within the same genre - that are equally gameable. In gaming, it's not a question of quality, but of focus. Your difference was one between two good movies, one inward focused and one outward focused. David proposed that the dichotomy between focuses is more important for gaming that that between good and bad.

BTW, David - I hope you have read the original King Solomon's Mines (and She) by H. Rider Haggard and realize the movie is really poorly adapted. The original novel rocks as hard as Raiders. :D

-clash

So... he was agreeing? :confused:

Ned

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeySo... he was agreeing? :confused:

Ned

AFAICS, agreeing and expanding.

-clash

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeySo... he was agreeing? :confused:

What clash said :D

(Although I'd rather not refer to genre stuff as low art...)

Don't worry Clash, I've read Haggard....I was going to use Robin Hood as the example - Robin Hood (the Patrick Bergin version) vs Prince of Thieves....or maybe the Robin & Marion vs Prince of Thieves.....then said sod this, and went with Solomon's Mines :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWhat clash said :D

(Although I'd rather not refer to genre stuff as low art...)

Don't worry Clash, I've read Haggard....I was going to use Robin Hood as the example - Robin Hood (the Patrick Bergin version) vs Prince of Thieves....or maybe the Robin & Marion vs Prince of Thieves.....then said sod this, and went with Solomon's Mines :D

Regards,
David R

Agreed!  The movie was hideous! I had such great expectations, because I loved the book so... I really hated the idea of anyone basing their opinion of the book on that movie! :P

Great gaming resource, though! :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice... I really hated the idea of anyone basing their opinion of the book on that movie! :P

You're not the only one clash. I got a lecture from one of my players....

Also Ned, when gamers say "bad" movies, I doubt they are talking about the distinction between high and low art. They are talking about the quality of the finished product.

Regards,
David R

Ah, okay, no worries.

However, I am certain that the phrase under debate is referring to high art/low art. I really don't think it's a bout well-made books and films versus poorly made books and flms. Without giving it too much thought, I would be inclined to think that well-made "bad" films would have more and better gameable ideas than poorly made "bad" films. I might be wrong though.

Ned

GHOSTS OF MARS - perfect example . Not a great movie - but a great situation for a roleplaying scenario or campaign.

Also helps that its a remake of Assault on Precinct 13, which itself is a remake of Rio Bravo.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074156/trivia

- Ed C.

That's an excellent example, Koltar. It's slightly complicated by two facts:

1) John Carpenter is that rare creature, a director of working-class action movies. Not to use CGI in the 21st century is like a class decision ("good honest labor"), which then generates a visual style. That's totally different from Raiders, and that's one reason why I'm not into the high/low dichotomy, either. (Another is that it excludes the dreaded middle, which is the default rpg.net taste these days: middle brow schlock, IOW kitsch that thinks it's "high.")

2) and related to 1): I don't think John Carpenter could ever be really bad. Even the worst Carpenter movie, which is probably what GoM is, is still a Carpenter movie.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity2) and related to 1): I don't think John Carpenter could ever be really bad. Even the worst Carpenter movie, which is probably what GoM is, is still a Carpenter movie.

I think the worst Carpenter movie is Escape From LA....simply because it's the most unCarpenter movie he's ever made (it's dangerous straying from your working class roots)....well besides Village of the Damned of course. Not that being unCarpenter is necessarily a bad thing. It's worked once before with Starman.

My Hunter campaign was based on his early work although it has to said his "good" early work.  

Regards,
David R

I hated what Carpenter did with Vampire$.

Still reading Greenberg, Pierce?

Still hiding your vacuity behind the one-line quip?

Or do you have a contribution to make?

Last time you didn't. You chickened out.

Will you chicken out again?

I know you are, but what am I? When did I last see you put any effort in?

QED #2.

In the late modern era, is there now something like "reverse kitsch", i.e. middlebrow aping the art of "the people", perhaps out of a longing for "real culture" as in "keepin' it real"?

Examples, please.

Gangster rap marketed to and purchased by middle class white boys.

EDIT: also, perhaps, New Age repackaging of third-world religious/tribal belief.

No, that's primitivism, broadly conceived. Primitivism = downwardly / backwardly mobile (failed effort to plug into rawness / spirituality). Kitsch = upwardly mobile (failed effort to produce high art or lit, e.g. Neil Gaiman's novels).

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNo, that's primitivism, broadly conceived. Primitivism = downwardly / backwardly mobile (failed effort to plug into rawness / spirituality). Kitsch = upwardly mobile (failed effort to produce high art or lit, e.g. Neil Gaiman's novels).

Which is why the rabbit referred to it as "reverse kitch" I think... :D

-clash

Yes, at this remove, I think it's just a lack of familiarity with the standard terms.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityQED #2.

I wonder who you think you're demonstrating to, dummkopf.