Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Walter

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 626
Neat to be able to read the interview at my leisure, I own the Japanese one as well so as Walter said, rest is pretty meh.

By the way, what is this illustrations guide you guys are talking about? Don't think I've ever heard about it.

It's an artbook (the only real one for Berserk) released in 1997, featuring a long in-depth interview with Miura. The translation for it is here, thanks to Puella and our Patreon backers.

Berserk Miscellaneous / Re: Dark Horse releasing guidebook March 14, 2018
« on: October 17, 2017, 04:33:54 PM »
Indeed, I have been wondering why they never bothered to make an English version of the artbook(s) (can't renenber if their is more then one for I have only one in french). Maybe they don't have the rights to make them?

Well they released the illustrations guide in other countries, so I don't see why the US would have any more trouble than them. It's probably merely a business decision on DH's part. They've explained a few times how they're very risk-averse when it comes to Berserk, ordering reprints of only hundreds of volumes at a time so they won't overshoot demand (vol 33-34 are currently sold out, btw), which is why I was surprised to see them localize this particular book.

One question though, are the romanized names in the book considered the real spelling for the characters? I know it has been discussed in the guide book thread at some point but not sure at 100% about it.

Yes, some of us had problems with a few of the name spellings (Mozguz / Burkilaka / Gurunberd, to name a few). As always, even spellings from official sources have to be questioned, because there's a language barrier. For what it's worth, the spellings in the character guide section of volumes has been on point for years. Then the guidebook came and raised more questions.

Movies, TV, Books & Music / Re: Twin Peaks Returns
« on: October 17, 2017, 04:02:29 PM »

Wow!  My face while watching. :ganishka: Alex should ditch his dayjob and become the key Twin Peaks theorycrafter.

Berserk Miscellaneous / Re: Dark Horse releasing guidebook March 14, 2018
« on: October 17, 2017, 03:59:04 PM »
Good on DH for releasing supplementary materials like this. I wonder why they never did the same for the Illustrations Guide? I guess it helps that the printing format of the guidebook is the same as the manga, whereas artbooks are a different beast entirely...

Either way, this means we'll get an official translation of the huge Miura interview, which is awesome. Having the rest of the guidebook translated, well, it's kind of hard to get excited for it, since I already own the Japanese one.

Movies, TV, Books & Music / Re: Movies you've recently watched
« on: October 14, 2017, 02:11:54 AM »
I did dig the atmosphere

Then you liked the movie  :badbone:

ominous Goslian look on my face (great casting for that part btw, definitely the role he was born to play =)

He's 1 Genuine Human Bean! And a real hero.

Movies, TV, Books & Music / Re: Movies you've recently watched
« on: October 12, 2017, 01:18:22 AM »
How do you feel about rumors of Denis doing the next Dune? It's again another movie that doesn't need a follow up and yet, it'll happen anyway ... so given that predicament (as a fan), is Denis the best man for the job? 

Similar to when Studio4C announced plans to adapt the Golden Age into a movie trilogy, I think cramming Dune into a feature-length film is a bad idea. Villeneauve has proven himself as a capable guy for scifi, but Dune is like, my baby. If anything, I hope him being attached will draw more people to the novel, because as popular as it is, I don't think it's ever really gotten its due (really, not different from Berserk in this respect).
It hit me on the subway this morning that perhaps it's not as obvious as it seems and that maybe it was still all orchestrated by Wallace? Luv could have killed K when she had the chance before swimming back to the car, but she didn't. Maybe she had orders not to kill him so it's orchestrated that K kills her (I'm shrugging this off as I type it cos it sounds ridiculous) and so both, Deckard + K lead him to the child he's been looking for. It's a big big stretch but Wallace talking about how the meeting between Deckard and Rachel was orchestrated was a bit bonkers and I didn't see coming.

Nah, I don't buy that. Why would Ana have twisted the knife? She was going for the kill. Furthermore, there's no signal that it's the case, so it'd be purely hypothetical. I think Wallace just fucked up.

Walter... I am interested in seeing how much of a lasting influence Blade Runner 2049 has on the Theatrical Medium over the next 30 years.

Probably not much. I enjoyed the hell out of it, but it was undeniably derivative in terms of what it offered as a movie experience, compared to the original movie. Now in terms of scifi movie storytelling, perhaps it'll raise the bar a bit, something like what Children of Men did at the time.

As Blade Runner 2049 was a near flawless film with the exception of some lingering shots

Come on... near flawless? That's a little over the top. And if lingering shots were your problem, then I don't know how you got through the first movie. It's far more slow moving in terms of cinematography.

And I'm not saying art-house films like 2049 shouldn't be made

Blade Runner 2049 wasn't an art-house film by any stretch of the definition. It's a Columbia Pictures movie distributed by Sony and Warner Bros. It's just about as mainstream as you can get.

Movies, TV, Books & Music / Re: Movies you've recently watched
« on: October 11, 2017, 03:04:42 PM »
This is really annoying to read with the spoiler tags, so here it is in a Medium post:

Blade Runner 2049 is a gorgeous film. Let’s start there.

Table the baby story for later, folks. Just take a look at it all. Drink it all in (hey now, don’t drink too much though — this is a 2h43m movie). The narrow glimpses of neon streets between the manicured skyscrapers. The dominating walls shielding the city from the ocean (fuck you nature, we’re California, the techno Babylon!). The smog layered on top of the remnants of art deco design from the era of the first movie.

The primary strength of Blade Runner was its futuristic spectacle, which somehow miraculously hasn’t worn thin across 30 years. That movie had atmosphere so thick it was almost tangible. And this movie somehow lives up to that, or at least, high enough so it’s not an embarrassing sidekick. Though it seems less concerned with chewing up the visual set pieces than turning a paranoid eye towards the MacGuffin-driven plot. That’s unfortunate, but certainly not a wasted effort altogether.
I don’t need to explain to this crowd how influential Blade Runner is, and thus, what a terrifying feat it is to pick up on its trail and attempt to make a new story truly matter. These were some big shoes to fill. So I appreciate how well this movie straddled the line of being a sequel while also being its own thing. I went into this whole endeavor pretty much grossed out by the idea, was somewhat softened by the early reviews being out-of-this-world, and about 10 minutes into the movie, I got it. I understood why that world deserved to be revisited.
There are so many small touches (and many not so small) to portray the quality of life for humanity spiraling downward, despite the luxury that’s available. Alongside 2049, 2019 looks like a Golden Age. Learning right from the jump that the Tyrell Corporation was bankrupt and replaced by Wallace Corp, something even bigger and more powerful, with an even tighter grip on humanity’s throat, was a nice cyberpunk touch. Though perhaps its my perception, but they kind of hedged their bets there. Tyrell made out to be a businessman/benevolent genius in the end, with Wallace being more of an aggressor, rabidly intent on exploiting an entire race to achieve his ends.
Speaking of which, I know he’s been a controversial actor recently (I still primarily associate him with My So-Called Life…) but I really loved Leto’s Wallace, who somehow embodies a melange of hipster-techie-zen master-Satan. Listening to him prattle was like hearing behind-the-scenes of a Google or Apple keynote, 30 years from now (“7 planets … WE SHOULD OWN THE STARS”). And then I read that the initial casting choice was David Bowie (FUCK!!!). Wallace’s on-screen real estate is brief, but his presence is felt in the architecture and the creeping lighting that’s in every Wallace Corp building shot. It was unclear to me how his master plan of reproductive-capable replicants would bring humanity to the stars (is it truly only a matter of worker production?), but fuck it, sounds great and terrifying. Also, I was so, SO bummed out we didn’t get a chance to see his futuristic, off-world torture tech (so demented that not even this rotten version of Earth can sustain it), though I knew it was a promise that couldn’t be delivered on.
If Wallace and his dense, layered diatribes are one end of the acting spectrum, then Gosling’s K are at the other. I was not a huge fan of his, but at least he wasn’t a barrier for the rest of the film, which was my fear. So weird that they left in that awkward, found-footage conversation between him and Robin Wright about Ryan Gosling lacking a soul, right?

K’s a vessel for the narrative, and a great punching bag (did Ford write into his contract that if he works with Gosling, he mandates a certain number of punches to the face?), but not much else. And that’s a bummer — but that was inarguably his role: He was supposed to be a second-class citizen who represses his feelings and simply obeys. I suppose they chose the right actor! He was rationed precisely one emotion, he used it well, and that’s all she wrote.

[BTW, Ford did actually punch Gosling in the face on the set.]
Instead, what I found interesting wasn’t in the script, but on the periphery: K’s station in the world, and what that said about replicants and blade runners. That placating little bow that K has to do in the presence of humans at the police department was a nice touch, and of course the intense, verbal assault of the [evolved] Voigt-Kampff test, which has a fascinating new function — we know who the replicants are now, so the test is to reinforce their servitude.

K is persecuted as a replicant within the force, and outside he’s persecuted as a blade runner. On that note, I couldn’t quite tell if he were treated that way on the outside because they knew he was a replicant or because he was a blade runner. My understanding is that replicant production had exploded, and thus his persecution would be a reaction to his job, not what he was. Though it’s interesting that the movie doesn’t spend much time on that predicament — really just the title exposition and a brief sales pitch scene from Wallace’s Ana.

I found most of Joi’s scenes to be indulgent and clichè. I’m honestly not sure what would be lost if she were removed completely. K being a sweet guy? They took Gibson’s idea for Idoru and assigned her a disposable role in the story. The only interesting angle for Joi for me was questioning where the line between her individual persona and herself as the product was drawn. It’s hard not to question whether an AI programmed to be a supportive, loving companion could truly have genuine feelings, or whether that was merely her only avenue for expression (K: “You don’t have to say that”). I suppose it’s an interesting question to consider, but I don’t think the film focuses enough on it to draw out an interesting answer for it.

Of course, the primary role that Joi plays is reinforcing K’s notion that he is the REAL BOY. However, the revelation that K wasn’t actually the “chosen one” seemed telegraphed a little too early on. The story seemed so headed in that direction by the halfway mark that it never felt solid to me. The problem was, once the truth was revealed, it’s too late in the film to do anything with the idea other than ruminate on the presumptive next steps in a human-replicant war, leaving a rather messily unresolved scenario. The ending is of course unconcerned with these practical problems, and instead, trades up for an emotional reunion, and one that in a thematic way, parallels Deckard and Rachel being rejoined to flee at the end of the first movie. I’ll take it.
Speaking of which, I really felt bad for Rachel’s actor, Sean Young, in the scenes where Wallace is holding up her character’s skull. They brought back Harrison Ford and Edward James Olmos (that was a delightful surprise), but for Sean Young, all they could spare were her remains. Oh but wait, they did bring her ba-*BLAM* Welp… Sorry Sean!

Ford’s Deckard didn’t bring much to the table for me, aside from a few well-written quips ([is the dog real?] “I dunno, why don’t you ask him?”). He didn’t really feel like Deckard to me. He felt like Harrison Ford in his sweats. Of course, 30 years changes a man, particularly given what he’d been through in the interim. And I didn’t check, but I think it’s a pretty safe bet that his number of lines is trumped by the number of times he punches K in the face.

While we’re on the subject of this couple, I’ve seen a lot of confusion still about Deckard’s character and whether or not he’s a replicant. This is, of course, the continuation of a nerd debate that has raged for decades, across multiple cuts of the original film. But from my viewing of 2049, I didn’t have many questions left.

* Gaff says Deckard was “retired”.
* We learn that Deckard went on the run with the remaining old-era replicants, in fear of being retired.
* Fear of other blade runners hunting him is likely why he’s so prepared for combat when he encounters K.
* Wallace regards him as “a wonder” at his role in creating the first replicant child. He ponders whether Tyrell “designed” their coupling to begin with.

None of these new bits put his replicant nature in question. Instead, they’re all evidence for it. All of this stacked on top of the old film’s recut leaving little to question, it doesn’t seem like much of a puzzle to me. Of course, Scott says he’s a replicant, Ford insists that he’s a human, and Villeneuve is mum. So I suppose we’re back to our own individual interpretations, despite all the additional material in this new movie.

I saved a bit here to go over some … well, they aren’t plot holes exactly; they’re just rough parts in the story that bothered me. I wanted to share them here in case someone can guide me through anything I missed.

1) Security in that police department is a bit… light, right? Yes I understand that Wallace’s personal assistant likely has ways of cloaking her involvement and deflecting any actual repercussions to murdering someone in a police department, but it just seemed a little unrealistically sloppy, given all the attention to detail elsewhere in the movie. That scene is there because it’s the first tip of the hat to Ana’s lethality. But also, maybe they just wanted to kill that dork in a really cool way? Even odds, I’d wager.

2) Was Wallace, Mr. I Own The Fucking Stars, really going to miss the fact that his nominally protected caravan was effortlessly dispatched and NOT track them down? Isn’t going straight to the one they’re trying to hide, just MAYBE not the brightest idea?

3) Are we seriously to believe that the entire story of Blade Runner was a setup so that Deckard and Rachel would ultimately fuck? That seems like an unreasonably convoluted retcon. If preserving Deckard for that act was so important to Tyrell, why was he given such a dangerous profession and ordered to track down lethal replicants? Seems a bit rash for a carefully laid out experiment.

Around the halfway point, I wasn’t much concerned with the story anymore, though the script really wanted me to be. In that respect, it reminded me of something I liked about Blade Runner. It’s so thick with atmosphere and so light on the narrative that it almost would work better as a silent film. I used to joke about recutting that movie so it would work as a silent film, but of course, never bothered. Griff can tell you about his recut of Minority Report though, he actually pulled off something we'd talked about doing — cutting out the fat and making it better.

This is all to say that what I appreciated so much about 2049 wasn’t where the story took us, but just letting us live in that world a little longer, seeing where it went (and where it was going), and them NOT shitting the bed in the process. That was so much more than I expected to get.

If I had to give it a number, I’d say 8/10, though it seems pretty silly, because if you’re still reading this, it means you’re into sci-fi, so you should just go fucking watch it.

Movies, TV, Books & Music / Re: Movies you've recently watched
« on: October 09, 2017, 03:40:03 AM »
Hey, I liked your original post with the expanded points on it's depth or lack thereof, it's place in Nolan's repertoire, and that kind of purportedly multiple-viewing movie in general.

Yeah, that was only my fifth draft! I often simplify my posts after writing them out in a stream of consciousness manner.

. IDK, I don't feel like any of these movies are truly not goopy;

It's a sliding scale, not a binary. And Interstellar is like early 90s Nickelodeon: GAK'D!!!

it's not like actual geniuses on the cutting edge of human understanding are writing Hollywood screenplays that are changing the way we think or teaching us something new, unless... Blade Runner 2049? =)

Nope Blade Runner transcends film as a medium, and the final words are "Cyber Rosebud."

And if you really want to kick the hornet's nest we'd bring up the P word, but I'm not gonna!

We should rename the thread to Griffith Bound.

Movies, TV, Books & Music / Re: Movies you've recently watched
« on: October 09, 2017, 01:07:13 AM »
Nothing to be ashamed of, Interstellar IS awesome! I have no idea why the usually slutty pop syfy fandem drew the line with its relative flaws, despite all its strengths, yet falls for every other one trick pony that comes through the stable (Edge of Tomorrow OMG I'M CUMMING!!!!). I'm guessing it's cynicism for show because the movie dares to mix sci-fi with unabashed sentimentality.

Whew, I didn't meant to kick a hornet's nest! Interstellar was by no means a bad movie. I just don't think its goopy quality has aged very well -- at least, for me. I went back and watched it again about a half-year ago. Didn't do much for me, and I felt a bit ashamed for praising it so highly at the time (2014).  :sad:

Movies, TV, Books & Music / Re: Movies you've recently watched
« on: October 09, 2017, 12:23:43 AM »
Well, that's a relief, I know you're not an easy date either.

That's generally true, but I also walked out of Interstellar thinking it was awesome, so I'm also sometimes just a complete ho bag.

(2h43m) ... Now that's the hard part... Maybe I'll leave work early this week and see it before I go home/url]

I highly recommend this app, too:  :carcus:

I have a lot to say about Blade Runner, but I don't want to get too into it before anyone here has seen it, so I'll just hold onto my thoughts for later.

Movies, TV, Books & Music / Re: Movies you've recently watched
« on: October 08, 2017, 05:53:12 PM »
Blade Runner was good. Carve out 2h43m of your lives and go see it  :void:

Video Games / Re: Dark Souls II
« on: October 07, 2017, 06:14:48 PM »
I don't disagree with everything being said about DS2, but there are a few great, memorable setpiece moments. In particular, one in the rain, and one in a tomb.

News & Not News / Re: AIM Going Offline
« on: October 06, 2017, 06:41:26 PM »
Yeah man, it sure takes us back. And are we even really better off now?

No, we aren't. The tech behind chat platforms has become more streamlined, but features have regressed. I know people really love certain platforms like Slack and Discord. I've used them both extensively, but they lack basic features that made AIM such a crazy, weird thing. With F12 you could record 10 seconds of whatever sound was running through your PC. It was nominally for recording short voice clips, like a conversation. But me and Griff made it into a fucking artform by finding abstract/hilarious combinations of music/sounds + images. Every other chat platform since has been a disappointment...

Video Games / Re: What Are You Playing?
« on: October 06, 2017, 02:15:03 AM »

Man, in your case, I'd hang it up for a few months and come back and start over fresh, making different directional decisions. I'm already feeling the itch to play through it all again.

Podcast / Re: Skullknight.NET Podcast: Episode 90
« on: October 06, 2017, 12:00:04 AM »
Sorry, but I think I completely misunderstood something. When you talked about Griffith being unable to control his body during full moon and the part about Zodd on the cliff, were you implying that the moonlight boy is a "transformation" of Griffith's body ?

No I'm sorry we didn't make it more clear. It's one of those concepts that we've talked about for so long that we take it for granted. Here's the origin of the idea, way back in 2006:

So indeed, our assertion is that the boy's body is Griffith's body, and vice versa. That itself is not surprising — we know that Griffith can transform; we've known they shared a body since Vol 21 (Incarnation Ceremony); and we've known since Vol 22 (Hill of Swords) that Griffith was aware he wasn't in complete control of his body. When the boy appeared on the beach, it seems he needed Zodd to help transport him there, and he returns to that same rocky cliff as he exits. It raises the question "why Zodd?" Well, who else uses him as a vehicle?  :griffnotevil: Later, he uses the World Spiral Tree's branches to transport.

Strangely, I've always thought it was something like the astral body of the boy being stuck within Griffith that could move on his own and appear physically thanks to the properties of the moon. I'm a bit lost, did I miss something ? :magni:

That's a popular answer to this predicament, but it doesn't work for a few reasons:

1) We've seen on three occasions the boy astrally project a body. It's that white figure that speaks to Guts (eps 241, 316, 327). Under what you're positing, the boy is an astral projection who can project another astral body, which is pretty convoluted.

2) The boy is perceived by everyone as a physical being, with weight, and is subject to gravity, unlike any astral/luminous body in the series.

3) He is able to slip under Schierke's radar only because she's never been cognizant of when he's used his powers (check all three instances; in each, she's been preoccupied or unconscious).  If the boy were a pure astral body, he'd stand out like fireworks to her perceptive eyes.

Creation Station / Re: Lith's colors & tutorials
« on: October 05, 2017, 10:53:44 PM »
Fuckin love it! I just keep zooming in, admiring every little detail. Could you discuss some of the color decisions you made for these creatures? Also, you spent a lot of time poring over each little creature. Do you have a favorite now?

Video Games / Re: What Are You Playing?
« on: October 04, 2017, 05:52:52 PM »
Correct answer. But serious question: IS there a better game than Super Mario World? No joke, there's literally hundreds if not thousands of "best game" contenders, accounting for taste, advances, etc, each arguably transcendently equal in their own right (many among Mario games alone), but from a pure gameplay standpoint is there anything above SMW? Without thinking about it I say no. =) Super Mario World: primus inter pares.

As far as a fun game to play, Super Mario World is tough to beat. It's remained one of my favorite games since childhood.

Check it out:

Mega Mana. I can personally vouch for it as I played it through with an old buddy I used to go on all night Mega Man and beer binges with (wild and crazy guys). It actually worked quite well, though a word of warning: if he can't yet hold his own solo at that level of difficulty its co-op is not nearly as forgiving as Mario.

Yeah, he's not quite up to the task of Shovel Knight yet. Still that mode looks awesome.

Berserk Anime / Re: Very Bad Berserk Summary
« on: October 03, 2017, 03:53:15 PM »
Oof. I wonder how much of the anime whoever wrote that watched to come up with that description.

It's a very specific misconception about the series. So it sounds like whoever it was watched the first episode of the anime, and then looked at a few pictures of the rest of the series :void:

Video Games / Re: What Are You Playing?
« on: October 03, 2017, 03:46:17 PM »
One could say that most games aren't designed to accommodate multiple people being able to join due to the nature of the game design (allies, extra assistance could break the game/make it too easy).

I definitely think games getting more complex has prohibited a simple drop-in mechanic from being more commonplace. It works in Secret of Mana because it's all relatively simple. You already have a second and third optional player character, so whether they're controlled by AI or another player is pretty arbitrary to the game design. Most games don't work that way, of course. That being said, why couldn't this have been done with Mass Effect? I know that game is very story-driven, but how fucking cool would that have been?

The irony is the Wii U probably did this better than anything; I hope they port over the co-op Mario platformers to Switch to go with Mario Kart (and did they NOT port Smash?) for you and the boy. Those are perfect co-op for gamers of all ages and skills.

He really doesn't care for Mario Kart. His coordination isn't quite there yet. He just runs into walls and gets frustrated. But yeah, I'm really counting on Nintendo releasing 3D World on the Switch, because I've been dying to play it.

Speaking of which, I'm relieved that he prefers Super Mario World to Super Mario Bros. 3. Just like dad!   :slan:

BTW, a reminder that you gotta try Shovel Knight co-op with him if you haven't already. It's Mega Man meets Mana!

Awesome, I didn't even know there was a co-op mode in that. I played it on 3DS, but maybe I'll get it for Switch if he's interested.

I see developers these days talking about game play loops and player feedback systems.  It just seems too sterile or as if they are trying to manufacture a new type of drug that will addict the player in a responsible and satisfactory way.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think it's natural for game developers to want to refine the process of making games. And the industry has basically segmented into several different ones at this point, each with their own pools of players. There's the "mainstream" market for AAA games, the "indie" market for simpler experiences, and the "mobile" market for dumpster diving modern roulette. It's common for people to be concerned that games are getting focus-tested to death, but well, sometimes it works. Valve uses TONS of focus-testing and their end products are super refined — you know, when they remember they can release games instead of just selling them.

EDIT: Oh, you mean like mobile games, designed to drain every last $1 out of you, right? If so, I honestly don't spend time on those kinds of experiences. They're just not for me.

Plus every damn game these days is so overblown and massive that its refreshing to just hand the controller to the kids and actually play the game.

 :ganishka: PLAY. THE. GAME.

I'm curious how your son likes playing with a controller.  My little one is pretty overwhelmed by the controller since she's used to touch inputs at this point but she loves the art style of Rayman, so we give it a try from time to time. 

Yeah, his very first gaming (and laptop) experiences made him want to touch things to make them happen. But he's seen me use a controller enough that he understands some games use touch and some games use controllers. His actual hands-on time with controllers is pretty minimal, so when he does play, he needs guidance doing common-yet-complex things with controllers like doing a running jump in Mario (hold run, hold right, AND jump at the right moment). Watching him struggle with that make me consider what makes sense to do in video games. That running-jumping thing feels very un-Nintendo these days  :guts:

But in other respects, he's grasping new concepts incredibly fast, which is of course what kids are great at. We played through Monument Valley over the weekend (he loved it), and he would end up solving puzzles where I was stuck ("Here, dada. Let me.")

Berserk Anime / Re: Very Bad Berserk Summary
« on: October 02, 2017, 06:25:58 PM »
Yeah, I've seen that summary a few times. I think it came from Media Blasters, who localized the anime for the US.

I mean, it could be worse, right?

Video Games / Re: What Are You Playing?
« on: October 02, 2017, 06:23:09 PM »

I've got a few of those ... There is something about Dark Souls II that is captivating. Maybe it's that ever-present sense of: "It'll get good in the next zone, for sure."  :void:

Played a few games on the SNES Classic with my son (almost 5 years old) over the weekend. During Secret of Mana: "This is fun, Dada. Why don't more games let us play together like this?"

Kid has a good point... The quick drop-in/out multiplayer in Secret of Mana is fucking fantastic. There are certainly co-op experiences these days, but nothing quite like Secret of Mana comes to mind. That game is more than 20 years old, and it's incredible to me how they nailed a single/multiplayer RPG, seemingly on the first pass.

Also, my son is super into Mega Man, and really loves Mega Man X so far. But I don't know what I'm going to tell him when I get to Sigma and absolutely can't beat him...

Video Games / Re: Games to look forward to!
« on: October 02, 2017, 05:54:01 PM »
Nioh is coming to PC!

That is excellent news. Like you, I am suddenly very interested in Ni-Oh!  :void:

Character Cove / Re: The Beast & Dog/Wolf Themes in Berserk
« on: October 02, 2017, 05:11:26 PM »
This smartly condenses my point exactly.  Although you don't agree, I am very happy to see that you do completely understand the case I was making.

What's this? A happy ending in a heated thread like this? Inconceivable!  :ganishka:

I created that image back in ~2010, so I don't have a PSD anymore. If you think you can use the existing image to pull off that effect, then please by all means go for it!

Character Cove / Re: The Beast & Dog/Wolf Themes in Berserk
« on: October 01, 2017, 02:19:50 AM »
Just PLEASE consider this for a moment. - although you think the idea of Gambino's dog having anything to do with the beast is just completely hilarious, are there really no valid points being made in my entire argument?  If you think it's all 100% bullshit then that's fine, we disagree.  I'm not 100% right but I may not be 100% wrong.  The beast is a part of Guts and the way he looks should reflect that.

I think you're positing that throughout childhood, Guts subconsciously cultivated a self-image related to dogs that was then distorted after the Eclipse to become the Beast of Darkness.  I can see how that may sound convincing to some. But examine any scene where Guts and dogs are involved, and the connection loses grounding. You're searching for tangible traces of the Beast in Guts' past, which you believe influenced the form it ultimately takes. But I don't think such a thing exists, and it does not need to exist.

Anyway, I would humbly ask you what, if anything, inspired the look of the beast.?

I think it's pretty simple. The Beast took that form with those specific features because of what that design evokes about that aspect of Guts. Miura probably chose an animal because it's supposed to represent Guts with his human bonds severed. And because Berserk is a story told in a visual medium, he can do cool shit like portray these violent aspects of Guts as a primal, salivating beast, single-minded in his ravenous thirst for revenge. What form would such a thing take? As it happens, it walks on all fours, has a low existence, drools, and has many sharp teeth -- features related with canines. That doesn't lend extra credence to any scene in Berserk with dogs. These features wordlessly convey what Miura is telling us about this dark side of Guts. It's a simple, effective and versatile design, and it doesn't require anyone to thumb through older volumes to understand the REAL meaning.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 626