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

You're overgeneralizing it, SC, but I think you know that. You trolled this thread, that's for sure.

But I said I wouldn't let myself get dragged back into your BS, and I'm not going to go to great lengths defending myself, since anyone who follows the thread from the beginning can see what happened.

Maybe you were right, SC, maybe you ARE sick & tired of this forum. You sure complained to me often enough about it.

At least now, without your "friendship", I won't have to read any more of your whining about how much you hate it here and how it's changed for the worse and how you distrust this or that member bcause they didn't give you the attention you deserve.

So, that's that. All I wanted to do was be friendly and take an interest in Dog Star's thread when I read he was going through a hard time.

No good deed ect.

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

Listen, Dog Star Man: I came in here originally with no intention to malign you or discredit your film theories/film science. As far as I'm concerned, my one little joke about you needing to up your medication (because what you were saying made absolutely no sense to me at the time) was going to be the last and final thing I even said.

When you wanted me to question you about your film science, I quoted here and mentioned something: THIS!

Then I told Will to shut up because I didn't want him in here trying to crack jokes, too, and make me look bad -- I didn't want this thread to go down into the dumps and not be taken seriously.

As far as I knew, my little joke to you about the medication was probably gonna be ignored and forgotten.

Now, yeah -- I made it worse by feuding with Deadite. But you know what? He made it worse too. You suggested that I should have taken it to the Shoutbox to fight with Deadite -- why the hell didn't he do that to me at all, huh? And since when is the Shoutbox a proper fighting ground? It is called "Shoutbox", not Thunderdome.

Okay, so I made one more joke with the Weird Science thing -- that was only because you had decided on not writing about your film science stuff anymore. And did you notice that my joke was actually about trying to persuade you to keep talking about what you wanted to talk about? I was supporting you, 100%. I have supported you 100% through this whole thing.

I agree that moderation needs to be done and your thread needs to be cleaned up. I actually mentioned this a lot earlier.

From now on, I'm gonna take the better route and just not write in here at all again. I'm not gonna write to that antagonizing Deadite anymore, no matter what he says. So go ahead, Deadite, have a field day, call me whatever you want. Enjoy. This is the last Sexy Celebrity post that will appear in this thread. If any of you want to PM me, go right ahead.

Thanks, guys.

Dog Star, you need to stop worrying about who is and isn't contributing constructively to your thread according to your rules. I expressed some opinions which I am entitled to and other people have done the same. You have to expect some baffled reactions from people when you say you want to make a movie that involves if 1 equals 2, 3 equals whatever. Some of us are simple folk who don't approach film from your high intellectual capacity.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

You are such a liar, SC. You've contributed very little other than jabs and excuses.

I never did anything other than point out what YOU were doing. You've done your best ever since to throw mud on me and accuse me of YOUR behavior.

If I ever met you irl, I'd sock you in the nose, punk.

I don't claim to get it all perfectly either but there are other ways to tell him that than making a lot of dumb jokes about mental illness and meds.

Where did I say that in this thread? The joke I made SC refers to had nothing to do with that.

You have a point, and I'm not trying to be a dictator in this thread by any means. If anything what I'm asking is a simple request. Its a plea to keep this thread on the right track by keeping things constructive and helping one another. That's all. And if you're confused by something I've mentioned, just ask me to further clarify. I don't think is asking too much.

__________________
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

Not you, Will. Sorry. I'm pretty mad, at myself too. I ended up in another exchange without meaning too. I'm not going to talk to SC or mention anything he's done from here on, I swear.

I just want to say I'm sorry to Deadite for not being easy on you when you mentioned that you didn't like what I said, and among other things. It is a sincere apology. I do not like the fact that I told you to go F yourself and for saying that you're not my friend and that I don't trust you. I wish I hadn't been so high strung. I don't care if you don't accept my apology - it's understood - but that doesn't mean it's not sincere. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, too, SC, and I accept your apology.

It seems I'm getting a lot of input to continue my film theories on here, so here we go again:

• D-1, (Dimension 1): is a blank slate.
• D-2, (Dimension 2): is a single stationary shot, unmoving.
• D-3, (Dimension 3): is the edit between two single unmoving shots, juxtaposed.
• D-4, (Dimension 4): is the spacial timeline that gives birth to the moving shot. (Say for example in D-3... a single unmoving stationary shot of a person sitting down, juxtaposed to a single unmoving shot of the same man standing, D-4 would play it out, so that the man once sitting it getting up in a spatial time frame).
• D-5, (Dimension 5): is the Rashomon Effect, different spatial realities juxtaposed to one another.

... but what of D-6 and the others? Still haven't wrapped my brain around how to achieve it visually.

• D-6, (Dimension 6): theoretically, would be the Rashomon Effect without juxtapositions.

...but I'm uncertain how to get there.

... Maybe Film can only reach D-5 ?



And fast-forwarding/slo-mo and reverse shot should also be considered as D-4. (or D-5 at best since it is distorting the time frame)

Reading through this thread almost makes me think it could have been a huge farcical prank from DSM, Fiscal, Deadite and SC. I know it wasn't, but it sure could have been scripted as such.

The contrast between wanting to discuss highbrow film science and the subsequent petty bickering makes for a highly amusing read. Perhaps you can derive some theory from these very pages DSM, though I doubt I'd understand it.

PS I'm not judging anyone for petty bickering. I'd be a hypocrite if I did that.

__________________
100 Favourites From The Future: REWIRED

Well, I never intended to bicker or thought the thread would go the way it did. My first post where I said what I said about SC's post wasn't meant meanly. I was just being honest and actually thought I was doing so constructively. But he apparently got mad about it and it all went downhill from there.

I don't want to get back into who said what, though. I just wanted to say I didn't originally mean to fight with anyone, and I kind of disliked the talk of SC "luring" me into the shoutbox, as if I could be led by the nose. I would've just ignored the shoutbox anyway, and would've went back to OP's thread subject like I wanted to in the first place.

Just so people know, it was Dog Star Man who said I should have lured you to the Shoutbox to fight. That was never my idea. I never even imagined doing such a thing. I find it hilarious that someone would think the Shoutbox is the place to have a brawl at.

A increase and decrease in motion, as well as reversing spatial time is still D-4 because it is dealing with duration, not D-5 because D-5 is dealing with different time and space realities. Hence, the Rashomon Effect. However, I do believe I've solved D-6 now, having read Flatland and Flatterland. D-6 is something which bends and folds though time and space to reach a set reality. In cinematic terms, this would be the cinematic loop, or infinity. Something I've already filmed in the past. However, D-7 seems quite easy for me since 7+ is all metacinema. I may post later.

So with D-5 you're referring to layered subjectivities?

Subjectiveness is the result of the effect, yes. D-5, in terms of multiverse theory, is different possible realities resulting from one set of an infinite amount of realities. In cinematic terms, one reality is set among an infinite, yet cinematically speaking "limited", amount of possibilities for the viewer to define each reality as "subjective". In D-6, in multiverse theory, reality bends itself into a reality which in cinematic terms would be a loop, or infinity. D-7 onward deals with metacinema.