Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Main / CheekyMouth

Go To

[004] Thalomarre Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I know no one here\'s striving for perfect objectivity, but the third paragraph, discussing the trope in static media, seems a bit unnecessarily judgmental, especially after the the stated acceptability of the trope in animation. If something becomes an accepted convention in one medium, why should it NOT be deemed acceptable in another, particularly if that medium\'s art style isn\'t realistic to begin with?
to:
I know no one here\\\'s striving for perfect objectivity, but the third paragraph, discussing the trope in static media, seems a bit unnecessarily judgmental, especially after the the stated acceptability of the trope in animation. If something becomes an accepted convention in one medium, why should it not be deemed acceptable in another, particularly if that medium\\\'s art style isn\\\'t realistic to begin with?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
At the very least, I think most here would agree that the phrase \
to:
At the very least, I think most here would agree that the phrase \\\"television rather than actual artwork\\\" carries some very unfortunate implications.

Should this be changed, or am I just being hypersensitive?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I know no one here\'s striving for perfect objectivity, but the third paragraph, discussing the trope in static media, seems a bit unnecessarily judgmental, especially after the the stated acceptability of the trope in animation. If something becomes an accepted convention in one medium, why should it [i]not[/i] be deemed acceptable in another, particularly if that medium\'s art style isn\'t realistic to begin with?
to:
I know no one here\\\'s striving for perfect objectivity, but the third paragraph, discussing the trope in static media, seems a bit unnecessarily judgmental, especially after the the stated acceptability of the trope in animation. If something becomes an accepted convention in one medium, why should it NOT be deemed acceptable in another, particularly if that medium\\\'s art style isn\\\'t realistic to begin with?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
At the very least, I think most here would agree that the phrase \
to:
At the very least, I think most here would agree that the phrase \\\"television rather than actual artwork\\\" carries some very unfortunate implications.

Should this be changed, or am I just being hypersensitive?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
At the very least, I think most here would agree that the phrase \
to:
At the very least, I think most here would agree that the phrase \\\"television rather than [i]actual artwork[/i]\\\" (emphasis mine) carries some very unfortunate implications.

Should this be changed, or am I just being hypersensitive?
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I\'d agree that it\'s the exact opposite to Ascension\'s concepts but for different reasons: The Consensus dosn\'t have any affect on what\'s real or not: Mane\'s are described as \
to:
I\\\'d agree that it\\\'s the exact opposite to Ascension\\\'s concepts but for different reasons: The Consensus dosn\\\'t have any affect on what\\\'s real or not: Mane\\\'s are described as \\\"not actually being real\\\" and even then, reality itself dosn\\\'t change, it\\\'s just that one part of reality is psychoreactive. you probably* couldn\\\'t change the nature of Mania by manipulating the consensus.

IMO that\\\'s the biggest complaint I have against the \\\"just use Mage\\\" theory of mad/superscience in the WoD. Both Mage cosmologies are incompatible with scientific rationalism, Genius can at least coexist since the Consensus is right about most things that aren’t Mania.

* I say probably, I have no idea what happens if the Consensus was to disprove a theory that \\\"mad scientists have supernatural abilities to invent physics breaking wonders\\\". Either they\\\'d just create a lot of Inspired manes or as they say: hilarity will ensue.
Top