449 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Why do you place value or relevance in something that doesn't physically exist (This isn't rhetorical, I'm going somewhere with it).

Why not?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Why do you place value or relevance in something that doesn't physically exist (This isn't rhetorical, I'm going somewhere with it).

Why not?

I'm going to need a bit more information than that.

[EmperorSahlertz]

 
That is the FULL electromagnetic spectrum, with the visible part highleghted for your pleasure.

Now, since you are a fanatical adherent to science, then you surely knows that COLOUR is merely the reflection of light on a surface. And as you can see from the picture provided, the colours that we see are limited to a mere 1% of all possible colours.
Yet here you are, having the audacity to claim, that since you will never be able to see or measure, nor comprehend these colours, that they do not exist?
Now, if you knew your stuff about eyes, then you would realize that humans got THREE differnet cone cells in our eyes (S,L,M). It is these three different cells that allows us to percieve the colours that we do. Now if you look at a dog's eyes, it only has TWO differnet cone cells. This needless to say severely dimishes the amount of colours a dog can percieve. Where we might see the colour violet, a dog would just see blue for instance (with varying degrees of saturation).
Now then look at the Mantis Shrimp. It has 12 (TWELVE!) different cone cells in its eyes. The cacophony of differnet colours it is able to see defy our very comprehension. Where we might see a shade of orange, the Mantis Shrimp would see an entirely unique colour. Exactly the same as with the dog, we would be incapable of seeing these colours.

Bottomline: Just because YOU are incapable of measuring something, doesn't mean that someone or something smarter isn't capable of doing that.

There is always a bigger fish.

[Orian Tabris]

*nods* Uh huh... *nods* Uh huh... And what was this topic about? What makes a great villain? Ah, yes... we have dismissed this claim.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

Did people try and imply morality is the same as our perception of color?

[General TSAR]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

Did people try and imply morality is the same as our perception of color?

Another glorious day on BSN.

[addiction21]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

Did people try and imply morality is the same as our perception of color?

Nope.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

Did people try and imply morality is the same as our perception of color?

I'll retort when Sherlock's over.

But yeah, this guy seriously just did that.

[BlueMagitek]

There are a lot of things that can make a good villain. They don't all have to be unrepentant monsters, magnificent manipulators or fallen heroes.

A good villain needs to have far reaching impacts on the lives of the protagonists. This doesn't mean that the villain has to be interested in the protagonist, or even know about them until later on. The villain needs a motive that makes sense from their point of view.

That's about it for the core of the villain, really. With that you can add attributes as you please.

[TEWR]

Villain I have found has a strong association with "Wow, much bad. So evil. Very enemy". I prefer... antagonist. And to me what makes a great antagonist is intellect, charm, wit, power, guile, and/or a heaping of other traits mixed together with one more thing: a reason why they're opposing you that you can understand, sympathize with, and perhaps even agree upon.

Like Vayne Solidor. Or Organization XIII.

Alternatively, there's nothing wrong with badass villains. Slade, for instance from Teen Titans, or Master Xehanort from Kingdom Hearts.

[Kelwing]

Best villian? Is the one you don't see coming until it's too late. Then game on.

[Neon Rising Winter]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

Did people try and imply morality is the same as our perception of color?

No, it's being used as an analogy. As is the way of analogies this means the one thing it absolutely is not doing is saying the two things are the same!

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Narrow Margin wrote...

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

Did people try and imply morality is the same as our perception of color?

No, it's being used as an analogy. As is the way of analogies this means the one thing it absolutely is not doing is saying the two things are the same!

It's a false analogy.

I've already pointed out how the analogy doesn't work based on the separate nature of his statements compared to the nature of the questions of this thread and the subjectivity of evil and morality.

[Dabrikishaw]

thats1evildude wrote...

Some people might favour different type of villains, but the truth is that there is no specific formula to making a truly great villain.

That's my serious answer for what is basically a thinly-veiled troll thread.

[KC_Prototype]

Don't forget, the villian needs to still be humane and go to any lengths to get their goals accomplished. The Governor was a good example.

[Steppenwolf]

What makes a great villain? Great writing. There is no character trait or traits that make a villain great. Some villains are great despite not being sympathetic and having simplistic, selfish aims. Some villains are great only for the things they do.

[Dave of Canada]

Well written and believable.

I've had enough with mustache twirling, insane or "I WANT TO RULE THE UNIVERSE... BECAUSE... I HAVE NO REASON!" antagonists.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 03 février 2014 - 05:16 .

[Steelcan]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

KC_Prototype wrote...

Don't forget, the villian needs to still be humane and go to any lengths to get their goals accomplished. The Governor was a good example.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Because I'm pretty sure murderous rapists aren't humane.

I was just thinking how humane the likes of Ramsay the Bastard are

[Ravensword]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

 
That is the FULL electromagnetic spectrum, with the visible part highleghted for your pleasure.

Now, since you are a fanatical adherent to science, then you surely knows that COLOUR is merely the reflection of light on a surface. And as you can see from the picture provided, the colours that we see are limited to a mere 1% of all possible colours.
Yet here you are, having the audacity to claim, that since you will never be able to see or measure, nor comprehend these colours, that they do not exist?
Now, if you knew your stuff about eyes, then you would realize that humans got THREE differnet cone cells in our eyes (S,L,M). It is these three different cells that allows us to percieve the colours that we do. Now if you look at a dog's eyes, it only has TWO differnet cone cells. This needless to say severely dimishes the amount of colours a dog can percieve. Where we might see the colour violet, a dog would just see blue for instance (with varying degrees of saturation).
Now then look at the Mantis Shrimp. It has 12 (TWELVE!) different cone cells in its eyes. The cacophony of differnet colours it is able to see defy our very comprehension. Where we might see a shade of orange, the Mantis Shrimp would see an entirely unique colour. Exactly the same as with the dog, we would be incapable of seeing these colours.

Bottomline: Just because YOU are incapable of measuring something, doesn't mean that someone or something smarter isn't capable of doing that.

There is always a bigger fish.

Well, this post is quite colorful and— *puts on shades* —perceptive.

YEAAAAH!

[Steelcan]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

 
That is the FULL electromagnetic spectrum, with the visible part highleghted for your pleasure.

Now, since you are a fanatical adherent to science, then you surely knows that COLOUR is merely the reflection of light on a surface. And as you can see from the picture provided, the colours that we see are limited to a mere 1% of all possible colours.
Yet here you are, having the audacity to claim, that since you will never be able to see or measure, nor comprehend these colours, that they do not exist?
Now, if you knew your stuff about eyes, then you would realize that humans got THREE differnet cone cells in our eyes (S,L,M). It is these three different cells that allows us to percieve the colours that we do. Now if you look at a dog's eyes, it only has TWO differnet cone cells. This needless to say severely dimishes the amount of colours a dog can percieve. Where we might see the colour violet, a dog would just see blue for instance (with varying degrees of saturation).
Now then look at the Mantis Shrimp. It has 12 (TWELVE!) different cone cells in its eyes. The cacophony of differnet colours it is able to see defy our very comprehension. Where we might see a shade of orange, the Mantis Shrimp would see an entirely unique colour. Exactly the same as with the dog, we would be incapable of seeing these colours.

Bottomline: Just because YOU are incapable of measuring something, doesn't mean that someone or something smarter isn't capable of doing that.

There is always a bigger fish.

Congrats you made a pointlessly long post that details nothing other than your ability to past images froom google and summarize wikipedia

[The Flying Grey Warden]

Villains usually fall into two categories or types, they are the Understandable and the Irredeemable.

The understandable is basically what it sounds like, a villain you can understand or relate to. Their motives are based on reasoning and logic you can follow, the emotions they feel and present to the audience are expected, and there is almost a heroic or at least stoic quality to them in most cases. They are the black knights, the paycheck baddies, the wrong place wrong timers, even the morally ambiguous, all of them basically having the potential to have been good, but simply found themselves on the wrong side of the conflict. They usually have some form of dilemma that will eventually put them at odds with their fellow bad guys, Be it motivation, goals, or even a sudden dose of morality or empathy, they are human, plain and simple. They feel pride, and honor, and anger, and guilt for what they do just like anyone else, but just find themselves unable to act upon those emotions as the hero might, be it for internal or external reasons.

As opposed to the Irredeemable, who just don't care and want to do bad things because doing bad things gives them some sense of satisfaction. Arguably these are the more memorable and fun villains to watch, as you are usually on the edge of your seat wondering what they'll do next. There is no conflict for these guys, they wear the labels of evil, monster, heartless, and bad on their sleeves as if they were medals, and they have no problem adding more onto their list of accomplishments. Be it for sick pleasure and entertainment to a cold and emotionless apathy that knows no bounds, to even just an addiction to destruction, death, and mayhem, these guys aren't the people you give a second chance to, they're the ones you give a second bullet to the head just to be sure they don't spring up and stab you in the back.