Search results

I do always like to ask when such statements are made - why are you so sure that it's him who misunderstands, and not you? Or moreover, why are you so sure that someone misunderstands, rather than simply having a different, equally-valid understanding of a subjective thing?

Like so many things that people propose AI would be useful for, they fail to consider the inherent biases that get built into AI, without the developers of said AI even realizing it.

That's fine, the point of my post was that regardless of whether you consider it true to the original or not, there were reasons for makng it beyond "cash grab", so leaping immedatwly to cash grab is incredibly unfair to the filmmakers.

Do you consider The Wiz to be true to the original? For whatever value of "the original" you prefer? If you do, then your definition of "true to the original" is broad enough that I have no objection, and it's an example of why you might make a new adaptation that is true to the original - that...

By original, are you referring to the Fonda film? That film was an adaptation to begin with. So one reason to make a new film can be to present a different interpretation of the comic. Also, characterizing what I wrote as "the only thng it shares with the original is the name" is incredibly...

No I did the same thing when I was publishing stuff. But you don't actually have to include it until it's time to publish.

Is that really a divide per se? I don't play 2E anymore, for example, but I don't consider myself "divided" from people who do currently play 2E. I think it takes more than just not being interested in a particular edition to have a divide. There has to be some kind of animosity, for lack of a...

Hasn't actually been published, so neither legal nor illegal. Yet.

This seems to enter the realm of pure speculation based on nothing at all.

Why should it be true to the original? Let it be its own thing. Stories get re-told all the time, with each storyteller putting their own spin on them.

Sounds good to me!

1. Okay, and? There are always subcultures within cultures. 2. In a game that generally includes half-orcs and half-elves, I don't think biological differences are as big a deal as you suggest.

You mentioned Wales and Ireland as well, didn't you?

If the gods of Krynn are so capricious that they will genocide people in order to prevent one of them from also becoming a god, then the Kingpriest sounds like he would fit in perfectly. Again, this just supports the idea that the "gods of good" were not good, but selfish and capricious...

I didn't suggest killing the Kingpriest was the best idea. I discussed that dichotomy because it was presented. It's a false dichotomy of course, there are far more options that just killing the Kingpriest or genocide.

Sure, if you only care about labels rather than meaning. Which renders any discussion of the meaning of anything moot, so it's not terribly useful. And there's nothing wrong with doing the opposite as well, examining "pre-modern" beliefs from a perspective of having a better understanding of...

"Not good" is NOT equivalent to "evil", so you're misrepresenting arguments here. Again. And yes, clearly killing the Kingpriest would be a FAR lesser evil than blowing up a continent. So if those are actually your only two choices (and that's a big if), then one is preferable to the other, by...

Yes, precisely. A type of justice that in no reasonable way can be called "good."

At which point you intervene to mitigate the evil that they try to do. A little genocide because maybe the evil gods might want to do something worse later (like two genocides?) and the good gods won't be able to stop them sounds like excuse-making to me.

Sure, if you miss the tiny little detail that we're talking about literal gods here. If you ignore the actual context of the discussion, you will often reach an incorrect conclusion about what is being said.