Filming with Fiscal, (and Those Who Want In)?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem like you're applying symbol-mapping to the interpretative process itself. But in a subjective landscape, every figure can serve as both a constant and a variable.

Anyways, it's all a bit too logistical for me personally, though I appreciate your philosophical bent. I'm much more of an intuitive by nature, and my approach to artistic formulations is a very flexible and modest "whatever works at the time" method.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Some friend you are, anyway. You snapped at me for no reason once and haven't spoken to me since.

Dude, what do you want from me? I apologized to you about that already, right after I wrote it. I had just lost someone I cared about and wasn't thinking clearly.

I have my own life and my own problems. I don't have to write you PMs constantly to be friends, and I don't have to explain myself to you.

This thread is moving in the right direction.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Fair enough, Deadite. Fair enough. Discussion over.

But since you keep giving me negative reps, F you and don't ever think that I'm your friend anymore. I'm not. I'm sick of you. I don't trust you.

You deserved those neg reps. I don't care what you think of me. Far as I'm concerned, you're acting far crazier than you made Dog Star out to be.

The thing is, I never made Dog Star Man out to be crazy. I joked about the medication, yes, but it was a joke with some concern in it as well because I didn't understand what he was going on about with this thread. I think he probably understood - I hope - since he didn't seem to get mad himself.

Now, are you done? We are taking up this thread and now we need a mod in here to clean up the mess.

You can spin it however you like. The fact is that you made your little snipes in this thread and then got sore when you were asked to move along.

Now move along, please.

Christ SC, go bother the shoutbox or something.

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

Don't be yelling at me, please, Fiscal. Deadite is nothing but an instigator who is trying to make me look like such a big, bad villain.

You're making yourself look bad.

Alright, fine. If I'm making myself look bad, I'm making myself look bad.

But there you go again with trying to piss me off. Just like you did before when you said:

And then after I made a "snipe" at you, you said:

If you're my friend, why did you call me out on what I said to Dog Star Man? I explained that I didn't mean to hurt him:

In the past, Deadite, you probably would have understood what I was doing -- hell, you might have even joked around as well, maybe. But not tonight. Tonight you called me out - and that's okay - but it still bugged me. So I made a mean joke to you. Then you whined about being my friend. So I apologized:

And what do you do? You say:

You could have said, "Okay, I accept" or even "I don't forgive you, that was a mean thing you said" -- but no -- you just basically tell me to get the hell out of this thread. Which you repeat later, too.

My point is that you are instigating me to keep getting angry at you because I did come back at you after this with:

Now, this is probably where I went wrong, but I liked your response:

So I gave you a positive rep. And I said:

But then you started giving me negative reps -- mind you, he didn't give me negative reps at all until after this very moment. He gave me a neg rep for my original post to DSM and others. I think he was instigating again. And from there, I added:

And from there on, it was just trying to end the discussion.

I'm sorry I took up space in here saying all this, but I feel like defending myself and explaining myself.

Okay, I thought about it some more: Are you envisioning a tripartite structure where the sum meaning changes depending on which section is perceived as the inertial frame of reference? How about if each section employed a different lighting scheme? Does that make sense?

Boy howdy, this is really not how I wanted this thread to go at all. Look for the record, I thought SC comment was kind of low-brow, (at least I took it as "since I don't understand, you must be crazy!") Instead of just proposing the question and asking what I mean by all this. (Trust me, I honestly could have explained it to you guys, all you needed to do was ask). But bye-gones are bye-gones and what was said is said. Can we let a sleeping dog lie now and move on to this threads original intent instead of making such a fuss? Again, if you have a question about anything, could you just ask? How about we move on now?

__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?

-Stan Brakhage

Dog Star Man, I'm sorry about all this. I didn't mean to offend you. I saw an odd, confusing thread about the science of filmmaking from you that didn't make much sense at first and I couldn't help but joke about the medication -- especially since you mentioned being on a lower dose. I even thought there was a chance you were having another "spell" or whatever they call it. So I really did feel concern. But I know I'm without class. Pardon me.

Sexy, its all good in the hood. Don't worry about it. You got class, in fact your name states so. So no worries. All water under the bridge. I appreciate your concern, even if I feel it now.

*group hug*

*feels Deadite stabbing me*

I'm sorry to you, too, even though I know you don't care/don't believe it.

Okay, so... tomorrow I'll elaborate on more of this stuff. Try to break it down and all that. In the meantime, lets all rest easy and go back to square one. A MoFo movie project!

Okay, now that I've slept, it's time for clarification:

First Cinematic Problem:

What if shot A is always shot A, it never differs.
Shot B is always B, that never differs.
And shot C is always C, it never differs.

So we have three shots, and three shots alone, that never change. How then does definition change between these shots? The answer is quite simple. It is not a matter of changing the definitions of the stated shots, but a definition of changing the duration of the shots since in cinema, we are dealing with time and space.

Take for an example shot A stays the same, but it's duration is not set. Same with shot B and C. Over the course of continuous montage of these three stated shots, where because duration changes between them, so does their stated definitions. They could exert a kind of cinematic intensity or paranoia if the shots montage quickly, or polar opposite, they could exert a type of realist harmony is montaged slowly.

Does this make sense?

If the stated shots stay the same, but their montage spatial duration changes. You can essentially make a film which creates a multitude of definitions based on its montage spatial duration.

That's solving the First Cinematic Problem.

I'm sorry to return, but... I think it might help if you came up with some ideas to describe how this process could work. Like, think up certain scenarios, storylines, situations, people, images, etc. Something one can visualize as a movie. Doesn't have to be something you definitely wanna do -- just throw out some ideas. It would help people think better, I imagine.