Lurker > Doe

Error1355 posted...

I find it funny when people assume companies acquire a site like GameFAQs for the sole purpose of shutting it down. <_<

It's plausible that GameFAQs was a package deal with some of these other buys like GameSpot. At that point it may behoove them to male the real but costs of GFAQs outweigh revenue so they shut it down.

BlueTigerLion posted...

Do the mods get a pay day from this? There doesnt really seem to be much discussion on the financial aspects. In a thread about a buyout.

The moderators are community volunteers.

I'm actually dreading the .fandom url so much. There's probably going to be a huge garish "FANDOM" banner at the top of the page that's multi-colored per their branding and breaks the aesthetic of the site.

kingdrake2 posted...

bolsonaro will call it a sham election and keep himself in power. just like that Venezuela president.

Maduro never denied election results. The same org that called that election into question (OAS) were the ones that helped lend authority to the fascist coup in Bolivia. The Venezuelan election was flawed but the people calling it rigged just wanted their own more US friendly puppet installed. Juan Gaido wasn't even a candidate in that election!

Super Star Ultra one of the most bomb ass games I ever played

guys allen also said gamespot would be a great team up for us and all it did was make our url worse

enjoy gamefaqs.gamespot.fandom.com

is there an alternative wiki format to fandom?

The site went from soul to having the soul stripped to about to be negative soul

Yep catalytic converters are on cars by government mandate, not because they're part of the propulsion or breakage or steering.

Ryuko_Chan posted...

have u ever tried intermittent fasting?

yes it didnt really work for me

woo

Yeah my main beef against him is he lied so long about cheating. If he's willing to do that and use his fanbase to cover for him then I worry he's capable of worse too.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/7/8/AAcZIZAADvRu.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/7/9/AAcZIZAADvRv.jpg
Do you think it's the same guy?

I have definitely seen pre-Super fanart that resembled these lol

Neoconkers posted...

is having the worst possible take on all matters your gimmick or what

lol not sure what I said to upset you

Vicious_Dios posted...

Literally who in the capital FUCK is Keffals?

person who got Kiwi Farms taken off the internet (until it came back up on its original domain a week later). Got a lot of hype after their campaign convinced Cloudflare to drop the website which is a pretty big deal for that company's ethics policy and website hosting in the world (since Cloudflare is a sort of defacto sole provider of DDOS protection which keeps websites up).

I imagine now she wants to keep that momentum for her online brand and take down targets that actually have reach on a lot of people (since let's be real, KF is pretty niche and just has an outsize influence harrassing a couple individuals like Keffals herself).

I will say when I entered this topic I felt it was unambiguous, now I think there's a lot of room (probably intentionally) to interpret the question.

I also wonder whether people will tend to come to different conclusions if they view the movie mainly about examining yuppies vs examining Patrick in particular as a person.

And it wasn't just object pokemon for gen v, they called everything about it dogshit because it dared to have the 'new pokemon only' premise. It was literally 'new thing bad old thing good' to them.

Evening_Dragon posted...

"genwunners" never took issue with chandelure tho. Object pokemon aren't inherently bad, it's just that the icecream cone is stupid.

Yes they did lmao.

Squall28 posted...

Look at how her expression changes at 1:20. She's not uncomfortable. She's in complete control of the situation and sent Bateman packing.

I'm talking about the change after "Are you my 2 o'clock?" / "No"

Froggish posted...

The point of the movie is that everyone is so self-absorbed and concerned with their own lives (what restaurants theyre going to eat at, what kind of suits theyre wearing, what bathrooms theyre gonna do coke in, etc.) that the fact Bateman is so clearly a deranged serial killer goes completely over their heads.

Can you name a single time in the movie that people miss an obvious signal that Patrick is clearly a deranged killer because they're too self-absorbed? I can think of the random guy asking him what material his overnight bag was when it had a body in it, but that's not a case of self-absorption, it's materialism and it arises as a complement to Patrick. The world of the yuppies and the world of the violence are kept very separate in the film, two different aspects that Patrick himself narrates he is trying hard to keep separated.

Mr_hulk88 posted...

The scene with the realtor was pretty straighforward unless you don't sense nuance.
Her instant switch in demeanor the moment she realizes who he might be makes it clear that she's very much aware of what had been cleaned from there.

He was a crazed guy who came in without an appointment and was snooping around the premises, and she's a frail old lady. I find it easier to read that she's uncomfortable that a crazy guy has run into this place, than that the property owner was able to clean out like a dozen rotting bodies and blood stains from this place, not to mention the damage Patrick supposedly did with the chainsaw and the two of them running naked, covered in blood, through the carpeted hallways of the lobby and banging on people's doors. That all this happened without a single tenant ever noticing a bloodstain or smell from the room, or in the lobby. And none of the tenants noticing, and none of the hired cleaners speaking out about, all the blood and gore they'd have to move and covertly dispose of.

The scene is crafted to be ambiguous as it's before the final reveal with Carnes the lawyer. It's surprising, and maybe you can believe it's just a corrupt hyper competent landlord with that evidence alone, but add to the fact that Carnes insists Paul Allen is alive, really is in London, and he met him twice, it becomes easier to believe that the gore scene just didn't happen.

Here's the actual script excerpts by the way.
https://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/American_Psycho_Harron_Turner.html

Bateman ducks down behind a parked car and continues
shooting wildly. A bullet hits the gas tank of one of the
police cars. It catches fire and explodes. The flames light
up the scene, illuminating the bodies of policemen both living
and dead.

NEW ANGLE: Bateman flees from the scene. The camera follows
him as he runs along a row of Porsches, trying to open each
one, setting off a cacophony of CAR ALARMS.

The surreal nature of how this is presented when it was directed and filmed is absent from the screenplay.

INT. PIERCE & PIERCE LOBBY - NIGHT

Bateman nods at the Pierce & Pierce NIGHT WATCHMAN and signs
in. He breathes a sigh of relief as the elevator doors close
behind him.

This is straight up changed in the movie. Bateman doesn't breathe a sigh of relief, he is visibly distressed. The elevator doors don't close behind him in the movie; it's a close-up shot of the doors closing in front of him and the language of the scene actually gives a feeling of suffocation or being cornered.

I can't remember but she's dead too. And Paul Owen. I killed
Paul Owen with an ax, in the face. His body is dissolving
in a bathtub in Hell's Kitchen.

Just a funny detail - he was apparently originally called Paul Owen, not Allen. Perhaps the greatest change from the script, much more catchy as Allen.

There's also different omissions like some of the comments on Reagan and 'seeming so harmless' being omitted. So in conclusion, you really can't judge the movie as a work based on how they felt writing the screenplay. Because filming the movie added, subtracted, and changed things from it.

https://www.moviemaker.com/american-psycho-anniversary-oral-history-christian-bale-mary-harron-bret-easton-ellis/4/

The End
People still ask Harron and Turner if Batemans murders really happened, or take place in his imagination.
Mary Harron: I would never answer that. As Quentin Tarantino says, If I tell you that, I take this movie away from you. I will say theres a moment where it becomes less realistic, and thats the moment when the ATM says Feed Me a Stray Cat.

So in the first place the director/co-writer and other co-writer don't say the same thing about this. Either way, I more subscribe to an "author is dead" approach to analyzing works. What Guineverre Turner claims about the process of writing the scenes does not necessarily hold up to the textual evidence, and how she felt in developing those scenes did not necessarily translate to how those scenes resulted, and the direction that was taken to actually create those scenes past the initial text. For example, right after your quote cuts off she says,

Like he shoots at a cop car, and it just bursts into flames, and she just directed him to look at the gun like, Hmmm, how did that happen?

There's more to a movie getting made than the screenplay.

Squall28 posted...

The significance is the reveal to Jean.

But my point is, Jean no longer holds relevance to the story at that point. Patrick's interpersonal life doesn't matter in the last minutes of the movie.

Squall28 posted...

I thought the calendar scene is about the secretary figuring how fucked up Bateman is. It's not a way of showing that someone didn't kill anybody.

In that case, what is the significance of showing the audience that scene? The immediate previous scene just established that Bateman can't be brought accountable for his feelings/actions even when he tries.

Her face is even ambiguous as we glimpse it before the camera changes to focus the drawings, it kinda looks like she's smiling even, as though to think "wow Bateman, you dork."

To show that scene in the final three minutes of the film as Bateman's place in the world is wrapped up and he gives his monologue-- what is the utility of that scene if it's to show that somebody is aware of Bateman's murders? To say that actually, the mask can be pulled off? That doesn't seem to agree with everything else presented in the ending.

Squall28 posted...

It's very likely he had lunch in london with somebody else he mistook for Paul Allen.

I don't think so, he takes the moment far too seriously and the moment of being given evidence Paul is alive seems to sway Patrick. It's specifically setup that Paul Allen claimed to go to London before disappearing too, so it would be a pretty big coincidence in a medium where there's no such thing as coincidences.

Paul Allen is also pretty high on the yuppie totem pole, the kind of guy who can get reservations at Dorsia. He's not like Patrick Bateman who's true form is described as a "dork, such a boring spineless lightweight", ie not someone you just mistakenly think you had dinner with TWICE. I agree a theme of the move is the superficiality and indistinguishable nature of everyone, but I think the directing of the "I had dinner with him twice in London" is too forceful to write it off as the lawyer's error.

And the scene of the lawyer denying it's possible is immediately proceeded by the secretary looking through Patrick's calendar and seeing all his fantasy drawings including depictions of what supposedly happened in the movie. As though not just the audience but Patrick himself is realizing those sequences were just his imagination.

In my watch the movie is pretty unambiguous that the murders didn't happen. Paul Allen really did go to London as confirmed by the lawyer, and most of the murders in the movie take place at "Paul Allen's apartment." The London story was discovered by Willem Dafoe, and Dafoe confirmed that Patrick was with his pals the night Paul disappeared.

The sequence from where the ATM tells him to feed it a cat up until he calls his lawyer is flagged from the beginning to not quite be reality. Patrick hallucinates the message from the ATM. Then the police cars explode like an action movie after he fires a couple potshots at it. He even looks at his gun, bewildered, at what just happened.

A particularly critical detail in this sequence is the office buildings. First, Patrick enters a building as though he is fleeing to his office. The clerk spots him so he shoots him, and he shoots the janitor on the way out. Then the next building we see Patrick enter is... clearly the same building. Its layout is identical, and this time Patrick greets the clerk as though he is pulling out a gun but really takes out a pen.

This visual cue of "Patrick says his real, frustrated feelings, then restates the 'appropriate' response" is echoed repeatedly in the movie, and it's no mistake that this scene is presented the way it is. The first building is what happens in Patrick's fantasy, and the following loop is his mundane reality.

It's also noteworthy that the major scenes Patrick has when not with his coworkers are all structured like different genres of fantasy. Patrick records himself with the prostitutes to do his own porno. The chainsaw murder where Allen's apartment is filled with corpses is Patrick starring in a slasher flick. And the police chase is Patrick's action movie.

What is Patrick's recurring catch phrase? "I have to return some video tapes."

Him filming the porno happens after we see a similar porno on his television. The slasher fantasy coincides with him listening to the screams of a slasher flick while doing his morning crutches.

what if I wall him in to our cellar next to the cask of Amontillado and leave him there?

it annoys me when city slickers make fun of refined rural accents

I had to watch it in high school. cool achievement considering its age but it was WAY too long

do genwunners still try to claim Chandelure sucks for being an 'object Pokemon'? Or have they been so broken by subsequent generations that they just accept Gen V is great?

I despised being called tardy in elementary school. It fucking wasn't my fault my mom was dropping me off late but I was punished for it and the administrators didn't care. Then they wondered why I developed issues with authority

Irony posted...

Is something you probably say to a lot of people

No, you just reply to a ton of my posts saying some variation of "no." It's frequent enough that I'm aware of your username in particular

Make no mistake this isn't a 'sacrifice for the greater good of stopping the agenda' in their mind, this is a total win win of less corporate dollars being publicly distributed. They cast this vote gleefully, they just pay lip service to the hurricane so they can keep eating faces

Irony posted...

I thought the ending was the worst part to be honest

You think a lot of things I disagree with

AsucaHayashi posted...

is it the definitive edition ending?

the vanilla version ending was a bit anti climactic for me

As far as I know there is no difference in endings between the two.

silverpine posted...

can you just tell me?

Throughout the game you're in charge of figuring out who is responsible for a murder in a small decrepit town. But the game isn't really about the murder. The mystery is a vehicle for the player to be able to go to places and talk to people with some amount of authority. The game's really about the amnesiac protagonist and what drove him to the drug bender that made him lose his mind. Following that idea, the actual confrontation with the murderer is by-the-books anticlimactic, but is interrupted by a sort of magical discovery of nature that is somehow related in bits and pieces to your whole adventure and is a sort of reflection or aspect of the protagonist. It's exactly the ending you don't realize you need but which the game has covertly been masterfully building towards.

80/80

I can't think of a more earned finale either.

If you haven't played it don't look it up

YeOld3DS posted...

Death Note is an Anime though.

Did your brain turn off after the first half of the post

DKBananaSlamma posted...

Is Code Geass good? Should I watch it? >_>

it's like if death note was an anime.

Anime Squared

games have had creative ability names for a long time. is "nothing to report" a reference to something in particular?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/2/5/AAcZIZAADvBR.jpg

Null_Gain posted...

If ownership thinks they can reproduce the results of the old team while paying less for a new team, you bet your ass they will.

that's the sad thing, they are blowing this company up and probably don't even fully realize it. They probably figured "they're hard to work with anyway we just need the IP" when actually they just flushed away all their gold

It's too bad there won't be an in-universe sequel by the same team, but honestly DE is already one of the greatest games ever made and though it builds ideas of future events and shapes the edges of a broader world, the game is very much about one moment in time for one particular person. I'm so thankful that DE exists that I'm not mourning the lack of a good sequel. I will however mourn the creatives getting screwed by the company's financiers.

I wouldn't characterize such a group as just "Gmod/SFM people" as Gmod machinima is an absolutely painstaking process. There are a lot of fellows who still work in Gmod and have really elevated their level of output. I did once see a video that was "[excellent machinima] remastered in SFM" or something to that effect and it had none of the joy of the original's movement. But sadly the comments were impressed. Very similar to how people seem to prefer "60 FPS versions" of anime OPs and scenes online, where the 60 is just arrived at by interpolating in-between frames resulting in an uncanny movement pacing.

So the premise of AI-generated images being 'superior' to hand-drawn ones is flawed for a lot of reasons. I think the simplest way to say it is that, although AI may be more reliable at creating "Shiba Inu Made Out of Watermelon Slices, Photorealistic" than someone you commission, the truth is that there was about 0 interest for commissioning that in the first place, especially before images like that became used to demonstrate the capabilities of text-to-image software.

AI Art hasn't actually solved or iterated on many problems or challenges yet. It is very impressive to obtain an image from text that was generated by that text, and a lot of people have enjoyed themselves using the novelty. But as it stands, people aren't and won't be turning to text-to-image tools for their problems that would normally involve professional artists. Real artists have less measurable advantages like vision, inspiration, and the ability to adapt and respond to the "conversation" of art in the world and online in order to create visuals that deliberately shock and impress the viewer of today.

I think the main place the argument that AI Art is "beating" or "outpacing", etc, artist-made art is that a lot of the general public have no education with which to judge the value of art except "how close it looks to real life." An absolutely enormous amount of people do not understand art as expression or communication or rebellion or conformity. They only understand it in terms of "real," "stylized", "abstract". And they often conflate "abstract" with "bad", "lazy", "unskilled", and so on. This is a fault of modern education.

Let's also be real that there is not a meaningful percentage of artists who took the massive time and labor to develop the craft because they couldn't find a whimsical photo without doing so. They draw because they enjoy drawing. They paint because they enjoy painting. Artistic expression and doodling are well-known joys.

The snippet presented in the OP is not the full exchange, though the way it's framed here reads like the 'techbro' is being shamed for preferring to use an AI tool to create an image instead of drawing it himself. I don't see a problem with that honestly, especially if he's more interested in computing than fine arts. The only way I can imagine that exchange beginning reasonably is if the anti-AI poster was claiming that text-to-image AI is unethical because there's been evidence the currently available ones were trained on data that was copyrighted or otherwise not given with explicit permission. That's a fair argument to have, but as far as the info just in the OP tweet is concerned, I don't see a basis to deny someone using a text-to-image tool any more than you would deny someone using a digital pencil over a lead one.

You know Jotaro, I guess we really are Jojo's Bizarre Adventure: Heritage for the Future

80/80

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/6/2/AAcZIZAADu-u.jpg

When I lost my save I think I was up to Waldo 3 or something like that.

piplup is so fucking based

In the dream I kept getting suspended for posting innocuous pictures. Every suspension was overturned but I was still filled with a sense of righteous indignation. I was truly very upset and sad

Pretty embarrassing to dream about a forum website NGL