Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Thu Nov 14, 2024 9:33 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): General/Updates
When you are not ARG'ing or playing Halo 2...
View previous topicView next topic
Page 2 of 8 [106 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Author Message
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously
Nightmare Tony wrote:
Still have yet to read Deception, but the other 3 books I found quite entertaining. HitsHerMark, if the illustrated is the same story and you have not read the original, you won't be disappointed. Its a thinker. Unless you let your religious beliefs blind you, it should prove an interesting read.


HitsHerMark, probably you shouldn't read this:

Spoiler (Rollover to View):
Unless, of course, you've read Holy Blood, Holy Grail and realized that Dan Brown basically novelized/plagiarized the whole thing.

Added to that, his characters are one-dimensional and fall down on the job -- here, the main character is supposed to be a symbologist -- he's supposedly an expert in his field, which involves extrabiblical texts...so he should be able to recognize that English written backwards is not a Semitic language. He should recognize that English written backwards bears no resemblance to any Semitic script, and in fact has features which would instantly visually disqualify it from being a Semitic script to anyone who has any familiarity whatsoever with Semitic scripts. Oh, and did I mention that it was obviously, at first glance, English written backwards? This is the best puzzle he can come up with? They're all sitting there: a symbologist, a code-breaker, and an unspecified type of Grail-y expert, and none of them can see this? They know enough to recognize Rashi script and STAM and not enough to recognize that no Semitic language looks remotely like that? Blech.

Add that to predictability, wooden dialogue, inconsistencies galore. Worse, he wrongly describes many of Da Vinci's works...I've seen Da Vinci code theories popping up in what should be serious discussions of these works, and I feel like screaming, "Look at the painting, for crying out loud! Just look at it! Don't 'read' it -- look at it without preconceptions about what you're going to see. Do you see anything remotely resembling what he's describing?"

But his most despicable act, in my opinion, was the disclaimer at the front claiming that all documents that he describes exist, all the artwork is accurately described, basically anything he presents as undisputed fact is in fact well-researched, undisputed fact.

But it's not.

He gets practically everything wrong. He cites the wrong number of existing noncanonical gospels. He misdates the founding of the Priory of Sion. He fabricates Templar history. It goes on and on.

The book presents itself as a plausible theory. When an author of a fictional book claims that there are facts there and he has researched them, people tend to believe him. People are trusting that he knows what he's talking about, and believing what he tells them. And he's making it all up. Now, if he'd presented his book as simply fiction, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But he didn't.

Read Holy Blood, Holy Grail if you're interested in these kind of theories. At least the authors did their research.

I'm not Christian; whether Jesus had kids is honestly irrelevant to me. So no, my religious beliefs had nothing to do with the reasons I despise this book.

My beliefs as a lover of art, a lover of history, a lover of good writing and a thinking person, on the other hand, had everything to do with it.

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:48 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
urthstripe
Entrenched


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 1113
Location: Atlanta, GA

 		Worshippy Worshippy Worshippy Worshippy

You've pretty much said everything I have wrong with the book. Except I am a Christian...but that doesn't really matter, I know a whole lot of Christians who love this book. It's just really sad how many people think this book is speaking the absolute truth or at least confused whether it is fact or fiction.
_________________
In this life, there are nothing but possibilities.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:01 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
HitsHerMark
Unfictologist


Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 1521
Location: Austin, TX
Phaedra wrote:


HitsHerMark, probably you shouldn't read this:

Spoiler (Rollover to View):
Unless, of course, you've read Holy Blood, Holy Grail and realized that Dan Brown basically novelized/plagiarized the whole thing.

Added to that, his characters are one-dimensional and fall down on the job -- here, the main character is supposed to be a symbologist -- he's supposedly an expert in his field, which involves extrabiblical texts...so he should be able to recognize that English written backwards is not a Semitic language. He should recognize that English written backwards bears no resemblance to any Semitic script, and in fact has features which would instantly visually disqualify it from being a Semitic script to anyone who has any familiarity whatsoever with Semitic scripts. Oh, and did I mention that it was obviously, at first glance, English written backwards? This is the best puzzle he can come up with? They're all sitting there: a symbologist, a code-breaker, and an unspecified type of Grail-y expert, and none of them can see this? They know enough to recognize Rashi script and STAM and not enough to recognize that no Semitic language looks remotely like that? Blech.

Add that to predictability, wooden dialogue, inconsistencies galore. Worse, he wrongly describes many of Da Vinci's works...I've seen Da Vinci code theories popping up in what should be serious discussions of these works, and I feel like screaming, "Look at the painting, for crying out loud! Just look at it! Don't 'read' it -- look at it without preconceptions about what you're going to see. Do you see anything remotely resembling what he's describing?"

But his most despicable act, in my opinion, was the disclaimer at the front claiming that all documents that he describes exist, all the artwork is accurately described, basically anything he presents as undisputed fact is in fact well-researched, undisputed fact.

But it's not.

He gets practically everything wrong. He cites the wrong number of existing noncanonical gospels. He misdates the founding of the Priory of Sion. He fabricates Templar history. It goes on and on.

The book presents itself as a plausible theory. When an author of a fictional book claims that there are facts there and he has researched them, people tend to believe him. People are trusting that he knows what he's talking about, and believing what he tells them. And he's making it all up. Now, if he'd presented his book as simply fiction, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But he didn't.

Read Holy Blood, Holy Grail if you're interested in these kind of theories. At least the authors did their research.

I'm not Christian; whether Jesus had kids is honestly irrelevant to me. So no, my religious beliefs had nothing to do with the reasons I despise this book.

My beliefs as a lover of art, a lover of history, a lover of good writing and a thinking person, on the other hand, had everything to do with it.



... DAAAAAAAAAAMN! That's a BIG block of red! Smile
_________________
"COVERED IN BEES!"
GirlInFocus
flickr

PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:07 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
Nightmare Tony wrote:
Unless you let your religious beliefs blind you, it should prove an interesting read.
Wait, what's the difference between letting your religious beliefs blind you and letting your religious beliefs guide you?
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:45 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
DreamOfTheRood
Unfettered


Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 714
Location: Indiana

 		I didn't read the Da Vinci Code for the same reason that I didn't see The Passion of the Christ or Fahreheit 911: hype. All three of these things garnished far more hype than I allow myself to pay attention to; therefore, I ignore them.
_________________
Twitter: DreamoftheRood


PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:39 am
 View user's profile MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously
DreamOfTheRood wrote:
I didn't read the Da Vinci Code for the same reason that I didn't see The Passion of the Christ or Fahreheit 911: hype. All three of these things garnished far more hype than I allow myself to pay attention to; therefore, I ignore them.


I read the Da Vinci code, and saw Fahrenheit 9/11 precisely because I'm interested in hype. What was it about these works that allowed them to generate so much hype?

The Passion, on the other hand, I knew I wouldn't be able to stomach. I've despised Mel Gibson since...well, since I can remember. I think seeing Braveheart may have crystallized it. He almost won back the basic respect I accord any actor in Signs but missed it by a little, and The Passion -- or not so much The Passion as his comments and attitude in interviews before and after -- earned him my undying enmity.

Added to that, I was intrigued by the fact that it was in Aramaic -- one rarely gets the chance to hear spoken Aramaic -- but the previews and clips I saw contained obvious errors, so at that point I realized all his talk about accuracy was so much huffing and puffing.

Then, his composer, John Debney, declared that they went with general ethnic-sounding wailing because traditional Jewish music was too boring for words.

At which point, I sat down at my computer. I prepared a playlist of my favorite Jewish singers and composers, talented musicians who remain faithful to their roots while composing moving, evocative, relevant, exciting music. I turned the playlist on, loudly. I began to compose an email to Gibson and Debney. I finished the email. I beheld it, smiled, deleted it, and proceeded to clean my computer room, singing along with Ofra Haza.

I'm mostly over it. But I still will not watch The Passion. For one thing, I don't like snuff films.
_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:39 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
drseuss90
Decorated

Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Posts: 277
Location: California

 		I wouldnt see farenheit 911 because I hate Michael Moore, plane and simple. I also did not see passion for a very different reason, but its not worth explaining right now. What about the HALO movie?????? I read in here that someone thought it shouldnt mirror the video game. I agree. Final Fantasy (although not a big hit) didn't mirror a game, but rather the plot line was new and felt like a Final Fantasy game. I don't think the Final Fantasy style of story was meant for the big screen. I think only those who played and enjoyed the games ended up actually enjoying the movie.
Edit: oh man, I thought I was posting in a different thread! Crap! Well I guess one missplaced post out of over 200 isnt that bad.....
_________________
"It has one of those little red rubber dot thingies on the keyboard. That's way better than a mouse. I call it the nubbin. Who wants to touch my nubbin?"

-Red vs. Blue Episode 45

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:55 pm
Last edited by drseuss90 on Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile AIM Address
 Back to top 
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Phaedra wrote:
I'm mostly over it. But I still will not watch The Passion. For one thing, I don't like snuff films.

ooooooooo... 'snuff film' is about as accurate as saying The Passion was filled with anti-semitism Wink

but we won't go there... suffice is to say it's a controversial film, so reviews are pretty much entirely based on the person's opinion. Even depends on whether you consider 'fact' being based on the Bible or not.

I dunno about the 100% accuracy of aramaic, because, well, I don't know aramaic. But I know enough to realize that if some of the grammar of a language I don't understand isn't 100% accurate, it won't ruin the movie. Or even alter it. Even so, it's just one of those movies that will go down in history along with Jesus and the Ten Commandments (and I mean that as the 2 films, not one... hehe - that sounds like an old band or something Smile)

I liked the movie... but that's just me. It's not a snuff film... a snuff film would be a movie which kills someone in such a way so that the viewer can get pleasure from it. There was no pleasure in seeing this portrayal of Jesus' death...

but anyway... Razz
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:25 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
HitsHerMark
Unfictologist


Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 1521
Location: Austin, TX

 		I'm not entirely certain that anybody really cares, but...

1. It's okay to be a snob Phae, as long as you understand that you are. Smile
(A friend once asked me what she should wear to the Renaissance Faire, and I said, "I'm the last person you want to ask." She said, "But you were a costume designer, AND you work at the Faire!" I said, "Exactly." Very Happy )

2. My knowledge of the Bible, while not totally deficient, is somewhat less then my knowledge of Shakespeare's works. I was not impressed with Mel's Hamlet and so I wasn't exactly excited to see his interpretation of the Bible. I still haven't seen it, not because I'm boycotting it or anything. I'm just not very interested, eventually I'll get around to seeing it on DVD or something I'm sure.

3. While it's funny to say that The Passion was a snuff film, I'm sure that the actor who played Jesus is fine. Smile

4. Moore is an ass. And asses can have valid points to make, but they can't not be asses.

5. There is a difference gkrohne.

6. I did finish the book and I did read what Phaedra had to say behind the spoiler tag. That bit did jump out at me a little. However, I shrugged it off as the author wanting to give Sofia (nice name) a victory over the two guys who got to do most of the explaining through out the better part of the book. He assumed the reader's ignorance on a particular subject, which can be dangerous as we can see.

7. DreamOfTheRood, if you avoid hype... Then how did you end up here? ilovebees... Halo 2... Hello? Smile
_________________
"COVERED IN BEES!"
GirlInFocus
flickr

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:32 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Kali
Decorated

Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 162
thebruce wrote:
There was no pleasure in seeing this portrayal of Jesus' death...


I'm not sure about that. While I doubt that it was enjoyable WHILE you were watching it (as in happy thoughts such as kittens, chocolate, blue grenade on top of angelo's head), the relief when it's over creates pleasure. Conjuring strong emotions IS pleasurable, in so far as it lets you say "I EXIST!". It's the same reason people who are easily scared watch horror movies and why people go to tearjerkers with a box of kleenex. People WANT TO FEEL, and they want to experience every emotion. The more "negative" ones, hate, fear, sadness and guilt, are most safely experienced vicariously, as none of us really want to have to deal with the circumstances that cause these emotions, nor with their consequences.

Whether he knew it or not, and I'm pretty sure he did, Mel created a movie whose specific purpose was to reinforce already held beliefs and create an emotional, shared experience to bind together members of the Christian community. (A tactic also employed by ILB, if you'll recall) Passion plays have been performed in churches for hundreds of years for this same purpose. The difference with Mel's passion play is that he has Hollywood Magic to make it more real than the more mundane Good Friday plays with the church choir.

My point is, if it had not been billed as a historical portrayal of the events, but rather, advertised exclusively as a religious experience for those of the Christian faith, I think there'd have been less controversy over the whole thing. That wouldn't have served Mel's purposes. He needed the advertising. Wink

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:40 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously
HitsHerMark wrote:
2. My knowledge of the Bible, while not totally deficient, is somewhat less then my knowledge of Shakespeare's works. I was not impressed with Mel's Hamlet and so I wasn't exactly excited to see his interpretation of the Bible. I still haven't seen it, not because I'm boycotting it or anything. I'm just not very interested, eventually I'll get around to seeing it on DVD or something I'm sure.


That was my pre-Passion reason for despising Mel Gibson. He seems to always subordinate the character to himself, rather than subordinating himself to the character. He's never Hamlet, but always Mel-Gibson-doing-Hamlet.

Contrast, say, Gary Oldman, who brings the character completely to life without constantly reminding you that he's Gary Oldman.

In my mind, an actor who's always primarily himself is not much of an actor.
_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:00 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

 		now that's a post I can moreso agree with Smile

Kali wrote:
thebruce wrote:
There was no pleasure in seeing this portrayal of Jesus' death...


I'm not sure about that. While I doubt that it was enjoyable WHILE you were watching it (as in happy thoughts such as kittens, chocolate, blue grenade on top of angelo's head), the relief when it's over creates pleasure.

Well yes, but if you equate the kind of pleasure intended from a snuff film to that kind of pleasure, then pretty much anything you do that doesn't hurt you can be equated with a snuff film...
ie it's a very different kind of pleasure from a snuff film than say, being satisfied coming away from a tragic movie that served its purpose, 'money well spent' per se.

I didn't come away saying "man that was awesome seein Jesus ripped apart and tortured with all that blood and the laughing and pain"... I came away torn for seeing and finally realizing how much he actually did go through (at least, as portrayed, MUCH more realistically, uncensored, and effective than has been previously), and ending up with even more respect for the event (if that's possible)... in a sense it opens people's eyes who's may not have been opened before, using the shock factor to get attention. The purpose was not to come away entertained, but to come away with a new understanding, an unfiltered understanding of the description of all that took place during the movie's timespan. Reading the Biblical account of that event, well, naturally from any accepted translaction, I highly doubt anyone would have pictured anything that graphic just from the text. But that's the point - these days, in order to be effective, a lot of people need to be shocked, otherwise it's not worth it. Most people out there would on the surface consider the Bible to be boring... so how do you present a Biblical story to the mass public, hoping that they'll come away not feeling preached at, or having wasted money? ...be real. Be honest. Be relevent. In today's culture, '40 lashes' just doesn't match up to the equivalent in today's torture because no one truly knows what was involved with '40 lashes'. In Mel's portrayal of Jesus, he didn't want to hide anything, he wanted it to be as real as possible, exposing people to the truth of the events.

You could almost look at it like a learning experience. All you ever learn about ancient times is what you read or your teachers tell you. It's never been visually portrayed - all the pieces put together to see the big picture, including all the emotions that would have been involved.

Quote:
Whether he knew it or not, and I'm pretty sure he did, Mel created a movie whose specific purpose was to reinforce already held beliefs and create an emotional, shared experience to bind together members of the Christian community.

and bring a realistic representation of the events to the eyes of other public communities who may never otherwise read/hear/see the story

Quote:
My point is, if it had not been billed as a historical portrayal of the events, but rather, advertised exclusively as a religious experience for those of the Christian faith, I think there'd have been less controversy over the whole thing. That wouldn't have served Mel's purposes. He needed the advertising. Wink

less controversy, yes... but would it have served what apparently one of Mel's goals was? To make it real for those who it wasn't already real for? Unarguably it's been attractive to many non-Christian communities and peoples and individuals... whether you view that as Mel totally lying about everything he said in honesty about the production, and that it was entirely for his own advancement, popularity, advertising, what have you... well, that's your choice... either way, whatever his ultimate goal was, the ultimate outcome of the movie, IMO, was positive...

if you don't like the movie, that your choice, and your right... Smile
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:18 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Phaedra wrote:
Contrast, say, Gary Oldman, who brings the character completely to life without constantly reminding you that he's Gary Oldman.

In my mind, an actor who's always primarily himself is not much of an actor.

Phaedra, for once, I totally agree Smile hehe

Mel has an abundance of emotion, and as actor acting out a character, he can be amazingly intense... but it's still hard to get away from "hey, that's Mel"... there are a few actors like that... for instance I just can't see DiCaprio as anything but an annoying kid Laughing he'd be 50 and that's all I'd see... haha

that's mean...
Razz
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:21 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
water10
Unfettered


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 712
Location: EvadeEvadeEvade
Quote:
7. DreamOfTheRood, if you avoid hype... Then how did you end up here? ilovebees... Halo 2... Hello?

hehe. I was going to post this, but somehow I forgot! Halo2 is one of the most hyped games ever ....
_________________
You’d better not mess with Major Tom!

Gamertag: Waters100

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:26 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
HitsHerMark
Unfictologist


Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 1521
Location: Austin, TX

 		... But seriously, you should all go see National Treasure.





Razz
_________________
"COVERED IN BEES!"
GirlInFocus
flickr

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:21 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 8 [106 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): General/Updates
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group