Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Also enjoy the Wilhelm channel - but agree with Lucky of course.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Booooo... I love the Wilhelm Channel!

>> ^Sarzy:

I think I'm going to abstain from this one -- I'd feel like too big of a jerk to try deny someone a channel that they want to create, but at the same time, this seems way too broad and impossible to define. You could probably make an argument for something like 90% of the videos on here to fall under a quirky channel. And who's to say what is and is not quirky? I might find something quirky that someone else finds completely normal, and vice versa.

You're apparently completely against this channel and willing to state it publicly. Why not just make it official? Don't think of it as being a jerk; it's just QA.

It's not like @shuac can't have a channel because this one gets denied. He can still try something else, or even refine this one and try again.

I don't like the name quirky, but I'd lurve a *weird or *subversive channel. *subversive is badass the more I think of it. Do it. Do it. Do it. </peer pressure>

>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^kymbos:
Sounds a bit like obscure to me.

I wouldn't say so, considering the description of the obscure channel:
"The Obscure Collective seeks to highlight obscure video clips from the music, animation and movie world. But mostly music."

The particular element that makes something suitable for the Quirky channel is "overtly producing something that's not necessarily meant for widespread appeal" like a piece of art that speaks to only a tiny handful of people.

That sounds to me like what the word "obscure" means.

The Quirky channel is mainly a subset of movies ... but it also applies to most other visual media [including] music

So, it's for video clips, including music, but mostly movies, while obscure is for video clips, including movies, but mostly music.

Seems like a lot of overlap there to me.

Just saying. I'm still inclined to stick with the "how can we refuse anyone anything in the post-wilhelm era", but I think this much overlap might be reason enough for me to go the other way on this.

Well just looking at the comments here I can see it would be confusing.

Although @shuac has defined it as an off-beat visual media channel we already have to discuss what fits. Quirky is extremely broad and visual media is everything on VS. I'm already confused by the channels (what the fuck is *willhelm any way?).

I say let shuac have his channel and @ant can arbitrarily put things in it--or take them out--depending on his mood that day.

I think that "quirky" is far too subjective.

>> ^kymbos:

Sounds a bit like obscure to me.


I wouldn't say so, considering the description of the obscure channel:

"The Obscure Collective seeks to highlight obscure video clips from the music, animation and movie world. But mostly music."

Being a quirky kinda guy, I think it's a great idea.

>> ^kymbos:

Sounds a bit like obscure to me.


seconded

>> ^shuac:

>> ^Sarzy:
And who's to say what is and is not quirky?

Well me, of course.


Well, sure, and that's why this channel sounds more like a great idea for a playlist you should create than for an actual channel. It's way too broad and subjective. It would be like if someone wanted to create a *cool channel, for videos that are cool or have cool people in them, or a *delightful channel, for videos that are delightful.

>> ^Sarzy:

And who's to say what is and is not quirky?


Well me, of course.

I think I'm going to abstain from this one -- I'd feel like too big of a jerk to try deny someone a channel that they want to create, but at the same time, this seems way too broad and impossible to define. You could probably make an argument for something like 90% of the videos on here to fall under a quirky channel. And who's to say what is and is not quirky? I might find something quirky that someone else finds completely normal, and vice versa.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The last game he liked this much was the mediocre GTA clone, 'Saint's Row 2'.


He liked Just Cause 2, too. He has an affinity for quirky and flawed sandbox games.

I'm also a fan of this quirky lady's humour and acting/editing skills, *promote!!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

But to care about SF, it has to be about how it relates to human beings. In some sense we have to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are experiencing the wonder. Otherwise it's dry and boring.

When I think about SF movies without good character, I think of Transformers. Style over substance.

Contact on the other hand had a great central character that let you feel the wonder of what she was experiencing through her eyes. That's vital.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dag:
Hmmm. Examples? I guess Dave Bowman was pretty flat, but HAL as a character definitely wasn't. Deckard in Bladerunner was not flat, very tortured nuanced performance by Harrison Ford. I think I'd have to disagree with you gorillaman. The best SF, like all stories, is character driven.
Well there's Rama, where Clarke correctly focuses on the ship. I feel like people who complain about the humans' characterisation just aren't reading the book right. I read Schild's Ladder recently - the characters have intellectual disagreements but not much else, to the point of lacking differentiated sexes, and it still paints a compelling portrait of future civilisation. I hesitate to mention Ayn Rand's Anthem, but she understood if you detail your protagonist too explicitly then you lose your universality of meaning.
It's not often an author can write SF in its purest form and still get published, so it's easier to find examples where too much emphasis on the human elements detracts from the work. Like Asimov's Foundation, one of my favorites. The characters in that book are downright intrusive on what's otherwise an exploration of events on a galactic scale. After the reader gets his introduction to the wonderful concept of psychohistory, the characters start to drive the plot and everything falls apart. The rest of the book and the subsequent books in the series become just Some Stuff That Happens. Well stuff happens every day, I don't need to read about stuff. Just like Rama's sequels, no good can come from watering down high literature with narratological cliches.
Good SF communicates to the reader a single idea as clearly and elegantly as possible then ends. Characterisation, even plot, are distractions.
It's an educational experience. How would you feel if your maths textbook gave the number two a quirky personality, and the equals sign a terrible secret to hide? That's fine if you just want to be entertained, but not if you want to learn something. I use SF as a kind of zen meditation, projecting my consciousness into a construction of a future I won't visit in person, in order to become enlightened.