Here we go again! This time it was plenty of no. 3 sable brush and 512 map-point nib. None of those crumby "permanent" drafting pens that got lifted by my eraser. I know, I know, I should be finishing tomorrow's comic...
I'm doing this thing now. CHECK IT YO. Heck even critique it I'M A MAN I CAN HANDLE IT. Proportions are to fit a three-column half-height image in the New Yorker... I can dream!
Okay so here is a drawing of the sun rising, as we commonly picture it, being big old dumb primates who use our crazy thinking-meat to think about all KINDS of things it wasn't designed for:
Illustrations from Paul Churchland's Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind as discovered by me in a conversation on the excellent new site LESS WRONG
So I decided to finally try beating Okami, I ran out of steam last time. I think I figured out a big chunk of the fancy cel-shading technique they used: I think there's a lower-poly model around each object with inward-pointing normals, and a shader on those polys that contributes to the ink-filter. This is pretty clearly what's going on on most of the landscape, and SOME of the characters. I'm so smart.
I rented SOLARIS the soderbergh version. hm. Totally lackluster as far as the whole ...
excuse me ...
FUCKING POINT OF THE NOVEL goes.
Nice soundtrack + use of shallow focus, though.
Looking back, Solyaris was pretty missing-the-point too but the longer setup helped increase the "no, you do NOT understand what's going on" payoff considerably relative to the new one. Lem says: "I only wanted to create a vision of a human encounter with something that certainly exists, in a mighty manner perhaps, but cannot be reduced to human concepts, ideas or images. This is why the book was entitled Solaris and not Love in Outer Space." ha ha ha
That Clooney fellow is rather well put together though I suppose.
EDITED TO ADD: why do all the star trek movies have german box art?