They aren't critical over you asking for more answers. They care because you wanted specifically judges to confirm. A lot of people on here may easily have more rules knowledge than your average lv 1 judge and it can sound offence to us as you are appearing to weaken the answers of us non judges.
Taking offence is not part of my question. I commended and agreed with genini2's answer. Requesting additional sources is not in disdain, as the other sources validate his answer.
The preface is that I asked the same question to 3 local level 1 judges and each had varying answers. Am I unwarranted for asking further?
Whether a person's answer is correct does not depend on whether they are a judge. Dismissing non-judges' answers in favor of judges' pertaining to game rules is not allowed.
I concur. The paradigm I ascribe to is the scientific method. If many sources agree on the same thing, interpretation is excluded from the situation. I did not doubt genini2's answer. As a rational critical thinker, I wanted several sources to confirm.
I saw Gravity each week of its run in my local theatre. 10 times. It reminded me when people watched the earlier Star Wars movies multiple times in theatres. If there ever would be a film that connected with me I would take each opportunity to take it all in.
For your consideration:
Green based rampdeck. Splashes of white and red for additional winconditions. It started out as a way to run playsets of stuff I normally don't play. And it ended up as a fun casual deck.
It starts out innocuous with a couple of mana walls, but quickly churns out fatties or a large fireball.
I've run some other cards such as green sun's zenith, tinder wall, thornling and empyrial archangel. They all functioned well, until Theros gave us the colossus. That card fitted perfectly by cardtype and role.
Hope this deck gives you as much fun as it does me.
Yes, the plotpoints are told. What I meant were the actual fear and dread of being alone and facing danger that can't be avoided. Few films reach such a deepseated gutteral feeling. At least that's what it did with me.
I'll admit that he does say his intent is more about metaphor than realism, but I don't know... the movie feels to me like it strives for realism in a lot of ways.
That's a filmmaker's conundrum. Each filmmaker, including documentary filmmakers, strive for a narrative that is engaging. Only the most dogmatic director would sacrifice narrative for realism. So a middle ground is the most desirable. Real enough so that most viewers forget the improbable nature of cinema. As the industry calls it: suspension of disbelief. Just real enough so the message is felt.
Of course, if a viewer refuses to engage, all that remains is a resistance to the logic of filmlanguage. Which is fine. I just hope that people recognize the connection the film clearly makes with its audience.
I've been retracing Cuaron's comments on his work on Gravity and he is very clear on the subject of accuracy and realism. He wanted to make the viewer feel as if you were in space and took liberties where it was needed to progress the story. From the get-go, he has attributed metaphore and allegory to the movie. Above all else, he wanted to make a cinematic experience.
I felt all these elements within the first viewing and with each consecutive time, I get more out of it.
As I said before: if a filmmaker/artist/writer can convey such human experiences without flatout telling you, is a rare thing.
I agree with blinking spirit, the narrative is simple, none of us are suggesting that it's complicated.
Take Christopher Nolan's work, it's very cerebral and very intricate. While very admirable work, I don't connect with his work emotionally. I find Gravity, Cuaron and Inárittu's work, very visceral and infused with emotion.
Neither one characteristic is a guarantee or requirement for a good film, but it helps.
Absolutely no disrespect intended to Gumonshoe. I have been sifting through all the reviews, critics and users. I get the fact that on the surface there isn't much going on. I don't disagree on that part.
Spoiler heavy:
But the philosophical journey is there. Each viewer can have different experiences. What I identified with, is the initial crushing feeling of being alone. The literal representation of being flung out into space, is very applicable to that feeling. Complete with the spacesuit metaphore for the mental shield we all create to protect us from emotional pain.
Continuing with Clooney's character as an analogue of a friend that helps you back to the point you can see light in the dark.
When Clooney's character cuts himself loose, it represents the extent that others can help you out of a dark place. They can encourage and point you to the door out, but only you can walk through it.
The scene when Bullock's character sheds her spacesuit and adopts a fetal position, it seemed to me as a metaphore for shedding her shield and old habits.
The return of Clooney's character is open to interpretation, but for me it represented the voice of reason and strength of Bullocks character. Anthropomorphised as Clooney.
With her return to earth and emerging out of the water, it makes for a powerful scene. I think that most people could identify with dealing with adversity and to keep on going.
The backdrop of orbit and the earth, resonated to me as a metaphore for distancing yourself from life. Especially from suffering and risks.
I also have to mention the religious/philosophical motiffs represented by the buddha/christian iconography. Especially the buddhist philosophy at the end, how Sandra's character accepts the inevitability of death and takes her chances anyway.
TL;DR
I connected with the film on many levels and a director who can make you feel his message, is a very rare thing.
I get the fact that when a large amount of media, critics and people are raving over a movie, there will be a select few who would resist or are repelled by the attention it gets. Because of this, I will tread lightly:
I am 35 and a film fanatic. My personal favourite directors are Kurosawa, Iñárritu, Jeunet and Fincher. I have liked sci-fi in particular. The point that appeals to me most about the genre, is by exaggerating the socio-technological advancements, the human condition is made clear and less muddled with "real" circumstance.
That said, I have waited for a "sci-fi" film that is set in a technological surrounding, but conveys a purely human message. I can't pin down all the layers, and they vary with each viewer that sees the movie. But for me, it hits so many beats that lay at the core of being human. If art exists to express and share an idea or emotion, Cuarón has succeeded wonderfully.
It is severely dependent on the format and your game plan. 2/1 for 1 is good in aggro and if all your creatures could be dropped in the first 4 turns. But if you're playing midrange, fat creatures or control; then a vanilla 2/1 is not really worth it.
Waking life by Richard Linklater. It's a rather dialogue/monologue heavy piece. Unique animation and chockful of alternate viewpoints. Hardly any plotline and feels more like an exploratory excercise. So be forewarned.
Personally, I liked the experimental nature and giving most people some food for thought.
Taking offence is not part of my question. I commended and agreed with genini2's answer. Requesting additional sources is not in disdain, as the other sources validate his answer.
The preface is that I asked the same question to 3 local level 1 judges and each had varying answers. Am I unwarranted for asking further?
I concur. The paradigm I ascribe to is the scientific method. If many sources agree on the same thing, interpretation is excluded from the situation. I did not doubt genini2's answer. As a rational critical thinker, I wanted several sources to confirm.
Would like a couple of judges to confirm though.
Green based rampdeck. Splashes of white and red for additional winconditions. It started out as a way to run playsets of stuff I normally don't play. And it ended up as a fun casual deck.
It starts out innocuous with a couple of mana walls, but quickly churns out fatties or a large fireball.
4 vine trellis
4 wall of roots
4 overgrown battlement
4 axebane guardian
carddraw walls
4 wall of omens
4 wall of blossoms
4 carven caryatid
4 chancellor of the tangle
2 colossus of akros
sorceries
1 devil's play
4 harmonize
lands
6 forest
1 mountain
2 stomping ground
2 fire-lit thicket
2 wooded bastion
2 razorverge thicket
4 grove of the guardian
I've run some other cards such as green sun's zenith, tinder wall, thornling and empyrial archangel. They all functioned well, until Theros gave us the colossus. That card fitted perfectly by cardtype and role.
Hope this deck gives you as much fun as it does me.
Yes, the plotpoints are told. What I meant were the actual fear and dread of being alone and facing danger that can't be avoided. Few films reach such a deepseated gutteral feeling. At least that's what it did with me.
That's a filmmaker's conundrum. Each filmmaker, including documentary filmmakers, strive for a narrative that is engaging. Only the most dogmatic director would sacrifice narrative for realism. So a middle ground is the most desirable. Real enough so that most viewers forget the improbable nature of cinema. As the industry calls it: suspension of disbelief. Just real enough so the message is felt.
Of course, if a viewer refuses to engage, all that remains is a resistance to the logic of filmlanguage. Which is fine. I just hope that people recognize the connection the film clearly makes with its audience.
I felt all these elements within the first viewing and with each consecutive time, I get more out of it.
As I said before: if a filmmaker/artist/writer can convey such human experiences without flatout telling you, is a rare thing.
Take Christopher Nolan's work, it's very cerebral and very intricate. While very admirable work, I don't connect with his work emotionally. I find Gravity, Cuaron and Inárittu's work, very visceral and infused with emotion.
Neither one characteristic is a guarantee or requirement for a good film, but it helps.
Spoiler heavy:
Continuing with Clooney's character as an analogue of a friend that helps you back to the point you can see light in the dark.
When Clooney's character cuts himself loose, it represents the extent that others can help you out of a dark place. They can encourage and point you to the door out, but only you can walk through it.
The scene when Bullock's character sheds her spacesuit and adopts a fetal position, it seemed to me as a metaphore for shedding her shield and old habits.
The return of Clooney's character is open to interpretation, but for me it represented the voice of reason and strength of Bullocks character. Anthropomorphised as Clooney.
With her return to earth and emerging out of the water, it makes for a powerful scene. I think that most people could identify with dealing with adversity and to keep on going.
The backdrop of orbit and the earth, resonated to me as a metaphore for distancing yourself from life. Especially from suffering and risks.
I also have to mention the religious/philosophical motiffs represented by the buddha/christian iconography. Especially the buddhist philosophy at the end, how Sandra's character accepts the inevitability of death and takes her chances anyway.
TL;DR
I connected with the film on many levels and a director who can make you feel his message, is a very rare thing.
I am 35 and a film fanatic. My personal favourite directors are Kurosawa, Iñárritu, Jeunet and Fincher. I have liked sci-fi in particular. The point that appeals to me most about the genre, is by exaggerating the socio-technological advancements, the human condition is made clear and less muddled with "real" circumstance.
Thas sa
Err e buss
Pur furr us
Nay lee ah
Personally, I liked the experimental nature and giving most people some food for thought.