Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
I think Truncated meant that a normal difficulty version of the warp run would obsolete pirate's, because his is hard mode and uses SRAM. Since Yrr is not using warps, his run won't obsolete pirate's, since it will be slower.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
moozooh wrote:
the only run that could possibly obsolete it is a normal difficulty, no damage, no warps run, as no-one has said otherwise
Uhh, according to what Truncated decided for pirate_sephiroth's run, Yrr's run will not be accepted. What can beat Yrr's run is, apparently, any run that beats it in completion time/style, regardless of what glitches it uses.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
I don't think pirate_sephiroth's movie should obsolete Atma's movie. If anything, the Julius run should not have been accepted. That would lower the amount of movies to 3, any, low% warp, and 100%.
Yrr, I would suggest that you not do any extra work until this is all figured out.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
I still don't understand why this beats Atma's any% run. This movie uses glitches much like the warpful run of Circle of the Moon. Either Atma's run should stay up, or the Circle of the Moon non-warp run should be taken down.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
xebra wrote:
Why would they be? The external shots of the space station show the windows on the sides of the ring, not on the inside or outside curves.
I'm confused here. You say that the windows are on the outside of the ring, and then you say that it fits that the windows are on the walls of the inside of the station. Therefore, that means that the station was not rotating to induce gravitation, since the people would be thrown towards the outside of the ring, which is composed of windows. Which one is it?
e.g. shoes with "grip shoes" written on the side.
So you need a sign that says "antigravity" with arrows pointing everywhere? Not everything needs to be painfully obvious. The shoes probably said 'grip shoes' because random idiots in the future would make normal shoes that look identical to space shoe.
For one, the ship wasn't stylish. It was a bland sphere, in sharp contrast, for example, to the sleek lines of the space shuttle. Second, it was clearly just an oversight on Kubrik's part ... he thought it would be cool to show the stewardess walking up the wall, but didn't stop to think about the fact that you can't land a ship like that without someone being upside down! No amount of hemming and hawing will change my perceptions on this. It was a clear mistake.
To Kubrick, the ship could have been stylish. Who are we to say that it wasn't stylish by the view of 1960s film makers? Furthermore, you're still assuming that all that was shown is all that was there. No lack of consideration for other possibilities will make you right by default.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
xebra wrote:
I don't think "dignified" means what you think it means.
No, it does.
I'm not sure what you mean, but it was very obvious that the floor of the space station was the inside curve of the rotating wheel.
As best as memory serves me, the windows were not on the ceilings.
Since the existence of antigravity was not conspicuously pointed out to us, we can assume this is not true
This is bad logic. Just because something isn't pointed out doesn't mean it isn't a factor.
I didn't, you did. Don't you remember when you said man's complete mastery of the unknown, his utter comfort in space, etc., was one of the themes of the movie?
No, I don't think that man being the complete master of something makes him tire of it. Also, man's mastery of his tools would be the theme. His tools allow him to venture beyond his normal boundaries, and in turn master them. It isn't necessarily about space.
First generation designs actually usually don't concern themselves with flashiness and stylistic innovations.
You're missing the point here: I made the assumption that the ships were designed in such a manner so that they would impress. Therefore, running with this assumption, that would mean that the first generation shuttles were flashy. Even if the corrolary weren't true, and your assumption about style were true, then what makes you think that a second, revised version of the ship, which is so comfortable in its own success that it focuses on style, isn't being shown here?
But you still don't drive upside down.
This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Something being common to us does not make it boring.
Your entire premise is wrong :/ . The music in the movie was not composed for the movie. Many of the viewers would have been familiar with the music, with the possible exception of the Ligeti, which was still fairly new.
Hmm. Then allow me to reiterate, by personal experience: I hadn't heard any of the movements in this movie until I saw this movie. Therefore, my initial responce to the music would be to subconsciously bind it to the feelings it evokes from me. As I observe the music being used in modern times, it overlaps with the same sense of emotion that was experienced when I heard it during the movie. Therefore, the music plays an integral role in a presentation aimed towards emotion, not prediction. As I said, whenever people hear the Dawn of Man tune, they don't anxiously await for a group of ape-men to charge around and revel in their new knowledge.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
xebra wrote:
I still don't follow how the movie dignified the birth of intelligent life.
Uhh... by devoting the whole first part of the movie to it?
I don't see how one interpretation or the other makes the movie any less boring.
For the same reason that some people like ballet? I don't know, I guess I can't convince you that it wasn't boring.
There was a plot?
There was, in fact, a plot.
It's clearly not speculation. The station was rotating to simulate gravity.
If this were true, why were the windows panning sideways? Unless you're trying to say that in its attempt to simulate gravity, they messed up and everyone is able to sit on the walls.
And you may be right it's not a legitimate concern, but I was finished thinking about the legitimate concerns while the scene was still only 5% done.
Mang, you must want to kill yourself after seeing Uwe Boll films or something.
Ships designed to land in gravity cannot have seating like that.
Unless the docking bays have artificial anti-grav, or just before landing, they all move to a less comfortable but gravity friendly room. There are millions of what-ifs that make it a non-issue.
Was space travel commonplace and boring with its supposed familiarity and banality, or was it new and impressive? Make up your mind!
For starters, you're assuming that space travel was boring in its familiarity. Secondly, you're assuming that the shuttle is a 2nd+ generation ship, or something of that sort. If it were the first generation of such craft, and it had been in existence for... say, 10 years, then that would explain why the flashy and innovative design was still there. Also, since we are all used to how automobiles work, we should all drive blank cubes with wheels? I find driving pretty banal and commonplace, but that doesn't mean I don't like my car to look nice or have nice features.
"Oh, it's that same crappy piece we heard before, must be a monolith near!"
You could use this same logic for a lot of things. If someone has a ring tone that I'd never heard before, I don't automatically assume that hearing that sounds means that that person is getting a phone call.
What you're saying is that music composed for this movie (which is now very iconic for many things, which says something about interpretation.) instantly became commonplace for the viewers of the 60s, to the point that the second time they heard the song, they didn't think "hey, I've heard that before.." but instead thought "oh man, INCOMING MONOLITH MUSIC". Emotional memory will trigger just before things fall in to place: if you immediately hated the Monolith upon seeing it with the music, then yes, you will always feel hatred towards monoliths upon hearing that music. However, this isn't universally applicable, so there.
Also, as stated earlier, this music is still around. Nowadays, when we hear the Dawn of Man music, we don't immediately assume 'here comes the monkey patrol'. When we hear the music that accompanied the Monolith in the film, we don't automatically expect giant black idols to appear. The music stands for something abstract, something more than just the images shown in this movie. They depict a feeling that can't really be bound by your experiences with one film.
The next time I watch the movie I will keep a detailed log for you, how about that?
Either you produce the list now or you cede on the point :p
Furthermore, stop responding to me! I have P Chem homework to do!
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
xebra wrote:
I don't believe the movie dignified the birth of intelligent life. I'm curious to hear why you interpreted it that way.
There is a good reason I referred to it as "intelligent life": the instance that man progressed away from animal by means of tools is shown when the tribe used bones as weapons to reclaim their water hole. Intellectual advancement -> reward, whic is something I would think to be very significant.
The quality of the production was clearly a major point of pride in the film, as scenes/effects which I suspect Kubrik thought new (at the time) and attractive were dragged on without end to emphasize how cool they were.
Therein lies the problem: glorifying man's ability to conquer outerspace is part of the overall message of the film. Showing, at great lenghts mind you, the comfort at which man is when in outer space, a setting very foreign to us, depicts the advancement that Kubrick thought man would have achieved come 2001. On the other hand, the scenes where plot (not theme) advances weren't given the same amount of attention.
Never mind that there is no reason for the docking portion of the station to be rotating (indeed, even Kubrik later realized this, apparently, and managed to comprehend that the Jupiter ship didn't have to rotate in its entirety in order to have a rotating subsection), I am willing to ignore that.
I don't think that this is really a legitimate concern. The reason that the stations were/were not rotating is purely speculation. For all we know, the station was rotating because, as a tourist attraction, it was meant to display a view of space, rather than just the Earth. For that matter, everyone on the station gets to enjoy the same sights, since they all essentially see the same panorama, given enough time.
I can only classify that scene as bad beyond belief, again ignoring nonsense like there being absolutely no reason whatsoever for the cockpit and the passenger section of the ship to be upside-down with respect to each other (and, indeed, good reasons for them *not* to be since the ship lands on a body with gravitation!) I could go on and on.
Well, once again, this is up to debate. I don't really care about the composition of seating inside the shuttle, since it is of no consequence to anything at all ever, but one could say that they maximized the shuttle's available space by creating circular seating along the outside and inside boundaries of the shuttle. Wouldn't that maximize the amount of seating per not looking up to stare at a woman's cleavage ratio? Also, one could argue that the shuttle was made in this fashion to impress future travellers. It's really up for debate.
To me it was neither.
Then, as you said, we will just have to disagree. The businessmen struck me as businessmen and the cool, composed astronauts seemed like cool, composed astronauts to me. If the video conference with the daughter were removed, I couldn't think of any acting in the movie that struck me as out of place.
I wonder how you can keep a straight face when you call the music subtle. I also feel like I am in a high school English class. Unifying archetype? Do you mean the music was a painfully obvious cue as to the subject matter of the unfolding scene?
The music was not subtle, it's message was. Also, the reason I'm talking about this movie in the way that I am is because I wrote a pretty lengthy thesis on this movie back when I took some film classes. Also, keep in mind that the music was not a 'painfully ovbious cue' to the people that this movie was made for: the music was meant to inspire emotion to viewers in the 60s who hadn't grown up hearing all of these tracks to the extent that we have.
I made my statement taking into full consideration the scientific knowledge of the time. I still maintain that it is chock full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
Well, I would disagree here, but I'm willing to hear you out. Examples?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
xebra wrote:
The movie attempted to be thought provoking in some scenes while going on to insult the intelligence of the viewer in others.
In that vein, I found the movie to be pretentious and self-absorbed, as opposed to thought provoking.
The movie mixed astonishingly good production in some scenes with astonishingly bad production in others.
The movie was an unbearably slowly paced mishmash of unrelated scenes that were both: 1) completely unnecessary to the plot, and 2) advanced by poorly conceived contrivances.
The acting was subpar.
Ligeti's music is really overbearing and offensive.
The movie is filled to the brim with inaccuracies and inconsistencies, which I was not expecting from a movie that clearly thinks so much of itself.
The movie succeeds in being thought provoking, since the underlying theme is very dominant in its subtlety. Keep in mind that many people will never understand the movie; if you were insulted by the simplicity of certain scenes, that's because you succeed where many people fail.
I didn't find the movie to be pretentious or self-absorbed: dignifying the birth of "intelligent life" or the glory of space travel seems fairly acceptable.
I don't think the production values were important in this movie, but I'd like to hear what scenes you disliked for this reason in particular.
While I will admit that the movie is very slow, every single scene plays a role in summation. Whilst I do admit that I don't fully comprehend the last few scenes, I do know that they play a purpose, and weren't just thrown in.
It is my understanding that the acting in this movie was supposed to be realistic, not dramatic.
You aren't the first to find the music intrusive, but I will state that it played a subtle role as a unifying archetype for certain elements of the movie.
As warp stated, the movie was made in the 60s, not recently. To claim that the inaccuracies portrayed by the movie's grandiose protrayal of the turn of the millenium is a detractor is to say that Newton was the stupidest man alive for not realising that his model of physics is not universally applicable.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
I love 2001. It does take some debate to truely understand it, but if you can stumble upon it on your own, it's a good watch.
Although I'll admit that infinite and beyond is confusing for me, and I've seen the movie 10+ times.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
comicalflop wrote:
But we do try to draw in interested viewers- why would we make these movies if no one was to watch them?
Personal pleasure, mostly. The satisfaction of completing something and having enough pride in it that we would wish to share it with our peers. The ability to showcase your own talents. I, personally, do not run for the sake of others or for the sake of setting some abtruse record: the satisfaction of setting out to meet a goal that you set for yourself is more than enough of a reasoning for my work.
So, uhh, I wonder if some mod is going to move all of this chatter to a new thread?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Mukki wrote:
anyone watching the run having not played the game would not even recognise that as a glitch.
No one would recognize it as a glitch because it is not a glitch. It's a trick by manipulating the control input vs visual output, per se.
Either way, I'm investing all of my support here in JXQ Inc. The last thing we need is to start drawing people in to this community for misguided/misinterpreted reasons.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Former player
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
mwl wrote:
without considering the fact that OoT simply isn't an action-filled game like SM64
This is why ratings are relative! A more exciting game gets a higher score from the viewers.
mwl wrote:
Radix hires established community members who have proven their expertise in a certain game to look over new submissions of that game and evaluate their quality
Actually, since I've verified many runs over there, I can say that this isn't the case. A more precise explanation would be "people who know the game well enough volunteer to verify for him:" there is no 'hiring' or 'proving their expertise' or whatever.
mwl wrote:
I'm making the assumption that most people who are against backwalking generally don't know the game very well
This is a bad assumption. Time and time again, people keep saying that they know the game well enough, but they just don't like watching Link's hat for extended periods of time. It's not a matter of being lost; it is a matter of boredom.
mwl wrote:
I believe that demanding TAS runners to sacrifice time intentionally for "entertainment" is an insult to the dedicated team of SDA researchers
Please get off of your high horse. Why is it that Kazooie, the person that discovered a majority of these time savers, never complains about feeling insulted? Is it because he is realistic enough to notice that his discovering something helpful does not instantly allot him adoring fans all across the world?
As I've stated in IRC, this whole backwalk issue is so trivial, it is retarded. Some people complained that they found the run boring because they had to watch Link's back for such a huge portion of the run. When the forward backwalk was found, people mentioned that hey, this would at least make Hyrule Field's trek a tiny bit more fun. And now, all of a sudden, people are up in arms over one instance where 10 frames are used up to satiate the requests of so many people? Allow me to reiterate the ethos with which much of this site should correspond: speed is a form of entertainment, not the other way around. To put completion time so far ahead of the entertainment value of a run that 10 frames in a 2 hour movie becomes a problem for you is ludicrous.
