[vincentcarmina]

Youtuber apologizes be like: I want to address current allegations that I scammed a bunch 8 year olds to believe they were in the Hunger Games, which led to murdering each other, and then posting the video of this violence on Tik Tok. Most of this true, but people are missing the whole story. Before I explain though, check out my merch. Link in bio.

[curiooftheheart]

Full offense but sometimes fandom just totally make up the characterization of a character and then complain when that isn’t canon

[vincentcarmina]

All three actors do a great job playing spider-man, but people are acting surprise that Garfield is the best. Here’s the thing:

- Toby is great but Rami is the driving force behind why people love the films.

- Holland is great but he’s not the reason people enjoy the MCU spider-man.

- Garfield took mediocre project and elevated it. His films are inferior (as a whole), but he has always been better than the martial.

[vincentcarmina]

I don’t associate myself with comicgate partly because I don’t enough about them to feel comfortable with it. I do think some of response to their complaints are off though.

Now, as far as I can tell the main complaint is that there is too much social justice stuff in comics. The response is usually that early comics did the same thing. I don’t think this is fair though. I for one wasn’t alive during this comics, so this isn’t a gotcha movement. Plus, much of older comics are full of bad writing.

I don’t actually care about inserting values in comics (even the controversial ones). I think most people would agree with me. Here’s an example: a good Wonder Woman comic is arguably always going to be feminist by its nature. It doesn’t require a line where Wonder Woman directly says this aloud. In fact, doing so makes the writing worst and more preaching, even though core message hasn’t changed. That’s the problem with some modern comic writers. I criticize Frank Miller for the same thing. Show don’t tell. I’m not paying you to tell me that women can kick butt, I’m paying you to show me women that kick butt.

The other thing is don’t twist characters to showcase those values. This ties into my issue with Frank Miller. His Superman is atrocious. Imo Superman should be apolitical, but regardless he wouldn’t be a mindless government drone.

[vincentcarmina]

Potentially unpopular art opinions:

1.) Not about quality.

2.) Art is determined by personal perspective and authenticity. Vision over entertainment, even if that vision is not consciously thought up by the artist.

3.) Much of modern entertainment is not art. Again, this is not a value judgement but a category one.

4.) Some of MCU films are art and others are not. Some of the best MCU films fit both of these categories.

5.) Almost everything Michael Bay created is art. Again, this does not mean it’s good.

6.) Not all paintings or drawings are art. Tracing isn’t art.

7.) Nearly every child is an artist, but it’s trained out of them.

8.) The statement not everything is art (true) is seen as elitist. It isn’t. The statement that only some people can be artist (false) is elitist.

[vincentcarmina]

Disregarding the idea of superhero being a genre, superhero films span multiple genres. They are often forced into the action/adventure categories, but imo this isn’t always the case. This misunderstanding is why we get takes of the Dark Knight being the best action film of the 2000s, despite action being the worst element of that trilogy.

To name a few:

Deadpool: Comedy

Spider-Man 2: Romantic Comedy

The Dark Knight: Crime Thriller

Thor 1 and 2: fantasy and action

Thor 3: Comedy

Logan: Western

Doctor Strange Fantasy

Burton Batman: Drama

Batman Begins: Crime Drama

Batman v Superman: Action

Justice League: Action

Avengers (all of them): Action

Homecoming: Drama (coming of age)

Batman (60s): comedy

Captain America 1 and 3: action

Captain America 2: thriller

Ant Man: Crime comedy

Aquaman: Action

Iron Man: Science fiction

Xmen 2: Action

First Class: thriller/action

[vincentcarmina]

Journalism is long dead and film criticism has now joined its father in the grave.

[funkymbtifiction]

Book Release: 16 Kinds of Crazy: The Sixteen Personality Types

“I don’t understand you!”

How many times have you heard that? Or felt that way?

Clear up the cobwebs of confusion with this in-depth look at the sixteen distinct personalities. Learn the crazy and fascinating ways you differ from those around you… and how to better understand not only yourself, but them!

Why does this person grieve alone and that one wants support? How come some people learn things instantly, but others can’t grasp how to do something “basic”? Why do some people see the forest and not the trees, or the branches and not the forest?

Glimpse inside each type’s head through profiles written based on over a decade of research, interaction with those types, and personal stories. Now, you don’t need to call your cousin “crazy.” You’ll understand what motivates them. If you want to, that is.

Order your copy now on Amazon or Smashwords!

(Here it is on Goodreads.)

Excerpts are now available in the MBTI Section.

Introduction:

The incident seared into my brain. I can’t forget it, despite wishing I could. A friend invited me to her house for lunch. After the first bite, her dad said, “Yum! This is so delicious!” followed by all their kids saying, “It’s amazing, Mom! So good!”

I looked around the table, but said nothing. Not because it wasn’t good but my crazy brain thought, “If I say it’s good with the rest of them, she’ll think I said it just to be polite.”

I almost got away with it.

The dad looked at me, having noticed my silence. He wasn’t about to ignore it. “Charity, aren’t you enjoying your food?”

Cue everyone looking at me. My face switched into fire engine mode. I swallowed a mouthful of spaghetti. “Yes. It’s delicious.” I tried to smile as I said it, but knew it was coming out flat. I didn’t like being made to say it, but didn’t want to hurt her feelings. It was nothing against the family or the food, but I wanted to tell her face to face later, so she would know I meant it. So it would be genuine and private.

Sometimes people don’t understand how I see things. Some might even call me crazy. I know, I’ve looked at others before and thought, “That’s a weird way to look at things.” I never understood other people until I discovered personality types. This book will look at the sixteen different ways people think, which causes their behavior. It will show you no one way of processing information is “right.” Maybe you’ll read it and recognize yourself, but if you take a while, that’s okay. It’s a journey of discovery. I hope what I share makes it easier for you to know yourself and those around you.

Carl Jung came up with the sixteen types and the lettering that catalogs them. I’ve studied his theories for over a decade and gathered information from years of research and discussion with individuals who are aware of their type and knowledgeable about their daily thought processes (and able to admit to their strengths and weaknesses). As you read, you will learn how each type thinks. Hopefully, this will make you more understanding of them when you disagree on things. You will think some types are crazy, but remember, no type is the “right” type.

After all, we’re all a little “crazy” in each other’s eyes!

ONCE YOU’VE READ IT, PLEASE LEAVE ME A REVIEW ON AMAZON OR GOODREADS. Thanks!

[vincentcarmina]

The Cracked flavored humor, of everything you love is actually bad, is so annoying. Even when it’s accurate (it often isn’t), it’s pointless. I specially refer to cracked because they write articles where they call out Kanye west for “stealing” a song from himself (meaning he wrote the song but it was originally for someone else). Be positive. Love Life even when it sucks.

[mbti-notes]

I know the Stephen Colbert discussion happened a while ago and for some reason actually got pretty heated. But I thought your process of typing him was helpful. Just for closure's sake, why did you conclude that he's not an Ne-dom, and what is most likely his type?

Watching him be himself over several months on the new show has been very helpful to disentangle his real personality from his previous persona. Perhaps contrasting Stephen Colbert and Ellen Degeneres will make the analysis easier to follow:

Stephen entertains to soothe his own loneliness and detachment (I); Ellen entertains to lift people’s spirits (E).

Stephen has a tendency to not-so-subtly push his own opinion/values when interviewing, his argumentativeness is genuine and personal (less flexible Fi-Si, seeks inferior Te validation); Ellen has a few causes she’s passionate about but does not really talk about them unless pushed to, opting instead to give the other person a chance to say whatever so that she can riff, her argumentativeness is playful and impersonal (flexible Ne-Te, seeks novelty to alleviate inferior Si boredom)

Stephen uses Ne silliness to camouflage what he really wants to say, meaning that his underlying motive is often to persuade (Ne is limited in scope and only used to service Fi); Ellen uses Ne silliness to elicit laughter regardless of substance, freely jumping from topic to topic with no need for a destination, completely ok with being silly for silly’s sake and not feeling self-conscious about it (Ne is loud and proud)

Stephen talks about himself a lot, in a very consistent manner, implying depth of self-image (I=higher Fi-Si); Ellen talks about herself a lot too but less coherently, sometimes claiming to be this, sometimes claiming to be that, implying breadth of self-image (E=lower Fi-Si)

[vincentcarmina]

This not only seems accurate, but in most NFP comparisons I lean INFP, but in this one I lean ENFP. That’s helpful because I am an ENFP.

[fun-mbti-analysis]

MBTI Types As Writers

MBTI Types As Writers:

requested by temporaltardis

INFP: predominantly poetry, or at least poetic prose. Lots of individualistic thought.

ENFP: deep thematic writing full of interesting unexpected metaphors as well as unusual plotlines.

INTP: usually a bit of a science-fiction edge, with a really interesting arc story and unexpected plot twists.

ENTP: basically their worldview in a fiction book, filled with only things they find interesting, and lots of new, exciting thoughts and connections. includes a twist ending almost always.

INFJ: deeply symbolic, very emotional and personal. goes under the surface of the topic to what it all means. few subplots.

ENFJ: creates very sympathetic characters, lots of analysis of the meaning of the events

INTJ: honest, direct prose, full of interesting plot turns as well as complex implications and criticisms of the real world.

ENTJ: lots of interesting critiques veiled in a complex plot

ISFP: usually poetic, often derived from personal experiences

ESFP: exciting and stimulating book without a lot of deeper analysis, but an extremely fun read

ISTP: action-focused book full of wild card characters and lots of snark and quirky humor

ESTP: action-filled book with sarcastic, fast-talking characters and lots of adventure

ISFJ: based on personal events and experiences, linear plotline with loveable characters

ESFJ: lots of intrigue, plot mostly derived from inter-personal drama

ISTJ: detail-oriented, with lots of world-building so that the reader has a complete understanding of how the world and characters work

ESTJ: complex world but simple plot with a clear message. lots of details about everything

[rylandsgrace]

[vincentcarmina]

Ooh burn! I love it when American reality shows (other countries don’t have those) feature a guy murdering people, who are helpless because they split up. I mean that is a completely relevant reply to the point Peter is making.

Anyways, this is was of these dumb things where everyone loves it because it criticizes America, but nobody actually thinks of what it means. Like really wacanda doesn’t have horror stories? This more of diss towards Wacanda culture than anything. Also, I love the idea that they have access to American media, but they chose to watch Jersey shore over the shining.

I don’t know man! I just think it’s funny how you can create an entire culture that everyone loves, and still make it American obsessed. I mean the implication a culture so barren that American reality shows are considered horror stories. Even if wacanda does have horror stories and she is just being marvel funny, it still makes little sense. Sure Peter made a joke, but it was a serious point about the potential dangers of splitting up. A warrior would have understood his point and taken it seriously, instead of trying to turn it into a media battle between American and walanda. This just makes her look overly sensitive, as if she thinks Peter was mocking wacanda. In fact, even his joke wasn’t very original, so he couldn’t be mocking wacanda itself. Oh and Peter is like 12. What horror movies has even seen, bye bye man?

By the way, I get that this is a joke, but it’s really dumb and people are acting like it’s super clever. This is a middle level joke written by a morally questionable billion dollar company that is probably just bitter that they don’t own the rights to those same reality shows they are making fun of.

At the end day though, I’m just glad that Marvel is teach young people moral lessons, such as “this screenwriter is very clever.”

[mbti-notes]

Hi. ENFP here. I often start all my projects or even studies with as much enthusiasm as possible, I'll research everything, talk to people about it, plan everything, but then it vanishes after a few months. Then i either avoid doing the task or, simply do it in a very average way just to get it over with. Is there a way i could just not lose my enthusiasm with everything?

Commitment in ENFPs comes from 1) a deep sense of caring, passion, and integrity = Fi development, and 2) a very determined and responsible attitude that does not give up until the objective is properly reached = Te development. Taking self-sabotaging shortcuts is a sign of immature Te/Te loop. See the Type Dev Guide.

[mbti-notes]

hello! could you describe each extraverted function's conversational style? especially se (while i can see more or less what te, fe, ne looks like in conversation, i have a bit of trouble seeing what se looks like.)

Se doms want positivity. They will try to make you feel positive so that they can feel positive, sometimes by telling jokes or funny stories. They observe your behaviors and reactions and respond to them moment to moment. They tend to be real, natural conversationalists, and good cheerleaders.

Ne doms want interesting conversation. They love to bounce ideas with people and go with whatever topic the conversation produces, gaining more energy the more interested/fascinated they are with the subject matter

Te doms want to feel engaged. They tend to have a storytelling style of conversation where they recount things to you, telling you about experiences or things they’re interested in. The more they like you, the more expressive they will be and the more they will humor you

Fe doms want to be on the same page as you. They channel and mirror your feelings so that you feel a sense of connection which makes you more comfortable to share private things. They shift their approach as necessary to avoid undue conflict or disagreement.

[vincentcarmina]

The Halloween franchise involves an officially unofficial multiverse. This is the consequence of a series of producers and directors who frequently ignore the previous films to continue a story they wanted to use. (Note: this isn’t a criticism. It’s just the facts). Here is how I would separate the different earths of Halloween.

Prime Halloween: As with most of the these, this starts with Halloween 1978. It ends in Halloween II when Michael dies in a hospital fire.

Halloween III: This film belong in its own universe where Michael Myers is merely a film character.

The Cult of Halloween: In this universe, Michael survives the events of the Halloween II. This is currently the longest timeline, and continues until Curse of Michael Myers.

H20: The prime event that separated this version from the previous universe, is that Laurie Strode is alive. It includes Halloween, Halloween II, and of course H20. It ends with the death of Michael.

Busta Rhymes: This universe follows the same track as the previous one, but Laurie failed to kill Michael. This is such an important change that it creates an entire different timeline in the form of Resurrection.

Zombie Halloween: Not much to say here. This involves the events of the Rob Zombie’s version of Halloween I and II.

The Shape: This is the most recent universe. It includes Halloween 1978, Halloween 2018, and the new films. It is different from others by separating the familiar ties to Michael and Laurie. They still remain bonded though in other ways. This is because the two of them are ultimately repeating an ancient archetypical battle between Hunter and Prey. Sometimes the Hunter wins and sometimes the Prey wins. They can never be truly separated.

[vincentcarmina]

A Critique of MCU

I ran across two long post criticizing the MCU today. I realize that isn’t a lot, but I honestly don’t see a lot of criticism of the MCU. It is beloved to the point of worship. So, I want to take this current inspiration to talk about the MCU.

Martin Scorsese voiced his criticism of MCU poorly. In doing so, he opened himself up to easy criticism of jealousy and pretentiousness. “What do you mean the MCU isn’t cinema? It is a movie isn’t?” He also got slight push back from people James Gunn. This is perfectly understandable because it is clear that Gunn does put a lot of passion into his work. The implication that he does not is not fair. On that note, this post isn’t directed towards specific artists who have worked on the MCU, or even every specific film/show, but the MCU as a collective whole.

I think what is lost in this perhaps poorly worded message is that Scorsese was right. The MCU doesn’t treat the act of filmmaking as an art form. Instead, it is more of an industrialized creation of entertainment. It is an disney product more than a piece of artistry. Of course, there are notable exceptions, and even in the films that appear the most to be a studio baby have artistic elements to it. The MCU is too vast and has too many people working on it for it to be completely stripped of artistic integrity. Scorsese’s harsh assessment of the MCU as a rollercoaster was correct.

But who doesn’t love rollercoasters? That was my initial thought when I heard Scorsese’s statement, and I’m still asking it today. Oh, don’t get me wrong. I realize some people don’t like rollercoasters. My point is that tons of people do love them, and that is nothing to be ashamed of. I don’t watch MCU for brilliant characters, plot, or themes. If an MCU film has has those traits, than that’s great, but I don’t go into the theater expecting it. I watch a MCU film expecting to have a burst of thrilling fun.

I recently saw Black Widow, and it was okay. I would probably say it was an average to above average movie. Nothing about its characters stood out, but I did like most of them. The plot was sort of predictable. Certain themes tried to pop their heads out to the audience every once in a while, before falling back in shame. You know what though? I did not care. It was a fun movie, and I had a great time watching it. That was enough. I probably won’t ever watch it again, but I’m glad I did.

The problem becomes when we see the MCU as something it isn’t: a work of art. Despite a number of talented artist, the MCU is never going to be a great showcase of art. This is the very nature of being less driven by specific artist, and more by the studio. Art can not be industrialized because it is tied to individual(s) who created it.

The MCU is basically cinema fast food, and there isn’t anything wrong with that. I love me some tasty burgers and salty fries. When we, however, expect all of our food to be fast food it becomes extremely unhealthy. In the same way, the more other studios try to imitate the MCU, the worst it will get for cinema as a whole.

This leads to a lot of problems in the filmmaking industry as a whole. Every film needs to look shiny with pretty CGI. It needs to have witty characters populating every scene. It needs to have serious moments, but be mostly lighthearted. Oh, and don’t forget to create a Cinematic Universe. Often imitations of the MCU only manage to repeat what the MCU gets wrong and never what they get right. This is why we get films like Joss Whedon’s Justice League, which wanted to be Avengers so badly that you almost felt sorry for it.

In fact, I would say that was the biggest misstep in the DCU: the very idea of creating a cinematic universe in the first place. By trying to immitate the MCU’s style, they just become a weaker version of something that already exist. Ironically, fans of the MCU will criticize the DCU for the very things that the MCU does. This is because unlike the MCU, they do not already love the DCU. You can forgive the faults of something you love, but when you take that love away, only the faults remain.

Personally, I think the MCU is closer to a TV show than a film series. It has a showrunner that ultimately controls everything. It is episodic and often ends in clifthangers. We often watch to see what will happen to our favorite characters, even if the plot sometimes loses us. The MCU is getting recent praise for their new shows, but I would argue that this has always been where they have excelled.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is just one billion dollar tv show. It is a national (or really global) pastime, and we can’t wait to see if our friends have seen the latest episode. Let’s just make sure we don’t lose what makes cinema great in the process.

[funkymbtifiction]

The post about 2s learning to be creative really annoyed me. Nothing against the poster or your answer. I just hate how people make 4s the embodiment of creativity, and then justify this by mistyping every creative person as a 4. Looking at my shelf right now we have:

Charles Dickens: Probably a 3w2

George Orwell: 6w5

Dante: either 1w9 or 9w1

Jane Austin: I lean 6w7, but definitely not a 4.

Hemingway: 8w7

Hawthorne: 9w1

Tolkien: either 6 or 9

C S Lewis: either 9 or 1

Terry Pratchett: probably 7, but definitely not a 4

Ray Bradbury: who is either 7 or a 9.

Mark Twain: 6w7

Shakespeare: I’m almost positive that he was a 7 core and I’m not even convinced he had a 4 fix.

Stephen King: I left off 5w4s, but I’m convinced that he’s a 5w6.

This not including writers that have a 4 wing like Fitzgerald (3w4). I also didn’t include writers that I think could be a 4 like Herman Melville (I think 9w8), or Neil Gaiman (who I see as 9w1). I’m also not including writers that I am very unsure about (like Lewis Carroll whom I could see being a 2 or 7).

The point is that all types can be creative and this is a personal pet peeve of mine. Thank you.

Mod: Plus Jan Karon (9w1), Charlotte Bronte (1w9), and Leo Tolstoy (9w8?). The only ‘creative’ 4 writers I can think of are Sylvia Plath, Virginia Wolfe, Mary Shelley, and Emily Bronte.

[vincentcarmina]

I’d add Edgar Allan Poe to that final list of 4s. Otherwise, I agree with Mod additions.