Legend of Zelda Happy Mask Shop difference in OoT 3D

[Luigitoilet]

I hate to be like this, but I hope you guys are merely doing this out of fun. Looking at it any deeper than at face value seems a bit silly. We all know Zelda isn't really all that thought out, they just keep similar themes with each other. Even Miyamoto said himself (I believe it was him) that each game will have inconsistencies and things unexplained because they are suppose to be like ancient tales told from long ago that has been messed with and partially lost over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author

The Beetles had the opposite view, of sorts.

They had a lot of fans that searched for deeper meaning within the Beetles songs, the Beetles thought it was a little ridiculous.

They created the song "I am the Walrus" saying it was utter nonsense and dared people to try and find meaning within it. Which, of course, people did with glee

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

We have gone from the salesmask guy to ripping apart the... I do not know what word to describe what you guys are doing at the moment.

In short, short. The MM was probably a surprising sequel to OoT by mistake after its success. You know, the rule that if it does well you make a sequel. So by the time OoT 3DS came around, you have the happy mask's mask pack in the back.

 

[Wizzrobe]

I read Dans article about the stone Tower Temple and it's pretty interesting. I don't think it is the theme of the whole game but just the Stone Tower Temple.

 

[MuraRengan]

I hate to be like this, but I hope you guys are merely doing this out of fun. Looking at it any deeper than at face value seems a bit silly. We all know Zelda isn't really all that thought out, they just keep similar themes with each other. Even Miyamoto said himself (I believe it was him) that each game will have inconsistencies and things unexplained because they are suppose to be like ancient tales told from long ago that has been messed with and partially lost over the years.

It's mostly for fun, but there are a lot of things in the game that have strikingly detailed correlations to real ideas. For instance, the 5 stages of grief represented by the areas of Termina in the order that you visit them is very specific and creepily accurate. The sun-and-moon symbolism is also incredibly consistent with real world astral deities. Also Hylian Dan's article (I'd say everything past the Stone Tower part) is very interesting to think about.

Miyamoto also said that in OoT he wanted to accomplish something with the mask trading sequence, but he couldn't because he couldn't make that side-quest super important, and that MM was his way of expanding on that "something." He never explicitly says what that something is.

But its undeniable that MM is rich in symbolism and intends to teach several lessons. Whenever I think of the moon, I think of the four questions that the moon children ask. They're so personal, I can't help but think that someone's trying to tell me something.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Ah, alright, that's cool. Was just making sure that was the case, was reading through this a little and saw some pretty serious theorycrafting going on. I approve of it, no doubt, but was just making sure. No doubt they had some symbolism when they were made, had to be inspired by something.

 

[Luigitoilet]

The Beetles had the opposite view, of sorts.

They had a lot of fans that searched for deeper meaning within the Beetles songs, the Beetles thought it was a little ridiculous.

They created the song "I am the Walrus" saying it was utter nonsense and dared people to try and find meaning within it. Which, of course, people did with glee

Yeah, but the idea behind Death of the Author is that the Beatles are not an authority on their own song's meaning. Once an artist brings a piece of art into the world, it's no longer theirs alone. If someone were to interpret I Am the Walrus as being about a certain thing, and their interpretation is supported by the text (lyrics) then it is valid no matter what John Lennon ever said.

To put it succinctly, an artist doesn't have the final say over what his work "means". It's very possible the creators of Majora's Mask didn't intend anything beyond face value...that doesn't mean that any subtext gleaned from Majora's Mask is "not real". Art comes to life in interpretation, not just creation. As long as you can cite evidence from the game itself, no theorycrafting is "wrong". Art if how you, individually, interact with the art. Shigeru Miyamoto's perspective on it is completely irrelevant.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

It becomes subjective feelings that you know are objectively wrong because they are coincidental. Music isn't the best comparison, although I disagree with your feelings on what it is. There is a singular meaning with each song, that just doesn't prevent people from making their own meanings for themselves from interpreting. The song doesn't tell you what inspired it (well, it may, but not usually), but that doesn't mean there wasn't something that inspired it and is the meaning the writers came up with. To say if you can cite evidence you make your theory correct is ignoring coincidence. You have no idea if that was the creator's intentions, they come up with canon, not you. Therefore, you can theorycraft for fun, but obviously it isn't canon or objective. It is just as Rengan said, you look for what inspired the game and have fun with it, it isn't anything more than that.

The creators most certainly have the final say in what their work was intended to mean. Drawing comparisons with art and so on doesn't actually change that.

 

[Spire]

Drawing comparisons with art and so on actually does change that. If anything, it reveals that games are art as well. Canon is agreed upon history, which in turn is an agreed upon fable. Even our own world history is but a compromised fable. It's what we do with it in the current that matters, and interpretation for application to your reality is what gives art lasting appeal. Majora's Mask continues to appeal after 12 years because of interpretative measure. It's what we take from the game that develops into our loving relationship with and for the game—not dissecting the intention of the creators. As much as you may do that, you do so to reflect upon. The game as rendered in your reality is but another mirror for which you might see yourself reflected in. Everything exists in this manner.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm not saying people shouldn't do it Spire, I agree that being immersed and thinking about all of the fantastical things is part of the intention. I mean, it is art, I'm just saying that intention does not override what the creator's actually thought of when they made it, and thus it isn't actually correct, especially considering how shallow the Zelda experience unfortunately is. It is as you say, it adds to the appeal. The fun of it. But LoZ focuses on the gameplay, the art is just the medium, confusing the medium with what is objectively in the story, while is fun and adds to it, is simply confusion.

Just as if I were to write a book, I'd want people to look deeply into it, but I don't want them going around saying what I intended in the story and what is what whenever I'm the one that came up with what is what.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Like the whole pokemon thing and the joke interpretation of it all being in ash's head while he's in a coma? Where as the various females represent his repressed sexual desires while Jesse and James represent his latent homosexual tendencies...

I'm pretty sure that's not what the creator's had in mind at all, lol/

 

[Spire]

No, but what if that became the reality of Pokémon? Ideas can transforms peoples' perceptions of work. In this age, the internet is being used to fuel the imaginative parameters of established series like our beloved Zelda. Google "Zelda art" and 90% of the images that you'll find are fan works. I think that says something about the state of the world we're in. We are customizing our experience through interpretive media. Fan fiction, fan art, fan film, fan games—the fans are the power of these franchises. Without us, the core love would falter. People are power and the developer's intent is benign. What they develop matters, so long as it stays relevant to us. We are the ones who determine what is relevant, hence why they released their timeline. Our incessant theorizing using the internet garnered enough attention to release their oh-so-secret document. Our desires shape the future of the franchise and thus our interpretations actually matter.

 

[Luigitoilet]

The creators most certainly have the final say in what their work was intended to mean. Drawing comparisons with art and so on doesn't actually change that.

A piece of art (in this case, a video game) can go on and serve its purpose without the creator.

However, a piece of art is nothing without an audience to interpret. What is a game if nobody interacts with it? It's a useless hunk of plastic cartridge.

Is it a pointless endeavor to interpret a novel like Naked Lunch because William Burroughs is dead and we have no possibility of knowing what his intention was? Did William Burroughs even have a specific intention when writing Naked Lunch? I don't know. I don't care really, because what does William Burroughs have to do with the words and sentences that make up Naked Lunch beyond typing them?

I wish you would read that wiki I linked you to begin with:

""To give a text an Author" and assign a single, corresponding interpretation to it "is to impose a limit on that text.""

""text is a tissue [or fabric] of quotations," drawn from "innumerable centers of culture," rather than from one, individual experience. The essential meaning of a work depends on the impressions of the reader, rather than the "passions" or "tastes" of the writer; "a text's unity lies not in its origins," or its creator, "but in its destination," or its audience."

"The scriptor exists to produce but not to explain the work and "is born simultaneously with the text, is in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, [and] is not the subject with the book as predicate." Every work is "eternally written here and now," with each re-reading, because the "origin" of meaning lies exclusively in "language itself" and its impressions on the reader."

---

these quotes work even doubly for a piece of art/media like a videogame, where there are quite literally dozens if not hundreds of "authors" on any one project. Every person that worked on that game left their fingerprints on it. This goes from the series creator to the person who wrote the story to the graphics designers. There is no one official authority on these kinds of projects. You could ask Miyamoto or Auonama what Majora's Mask "means", and what they will tell you is their interpretation of the text of the game. This is not the same thing as "THIS is what the game is and if you disagree you are incorrect".

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Coincidentally, I just saw something on facebook where they mocked a reader's interpretation of an artists work and saying the artists intentions had no deeper meaning than face value.

 

[Luigitoilet]

It is something that happens way too often. Serious art analysis (and intellectualism in general) is looked down on by the vast majority of people. And people who don't look down on it, often subscribe to that simple method of analysis and criticism that uses the creator as gospel. It's depressing.

 

[Shaq]

Yo man I remember when *****z would be playin dat Atari and punkin' kids out at da arcade.

Now y'all be talking 'bout games in all sorts o' crazy ways man sheeeee.

Anju tho she aight dat delicious white woman.

 

[Spire]

Shaq is back!

 

[Dre89]

The intention behind MM was to produce a game with as little labour a possible. They only had a year to make the game and it shows-

The whole 'Termina is a counterpart to Hyrule' was a cover for the fact that they didn't have time to model new characters, so they just used OoT ones.

The 3 day cycle was implemented so that places would have more replayability, meaning they didn't have to design more areas. Kind of like time trail or mirror modes, or increased difficulty modes.

The game isn't as symbolic as people think. The game has a deep and symbolic nature to accommodate the lack of dungeons. Symbolism, most of which conveyed through text or art styles, requires much less labour than dungeon design.

There's probably more examples I'm leaving out. The reason why no other Zelda is like MM is because they were never given such a small timeframe to be created (hence why they all have more dungeons). I love MM but the elements people are incorporating into their theorycraft are there for pragmatic reasons, not symbolic ones.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Dre, read my posts pls

 

[Dre89]

I've read it but I disagree with that interpretation. I think under that interpretation everything becomes subjective and virtually anything abstract and non-sensical becomes art.

To me, higher level art is portraying a specific story or message in the most abstract or creative way whilst still having the message or story decipherable.

That's why anyone with half a brain thinks that most mainstream Hollywood movies are complete trash. They just beat you over the head with a simplistic message that it conveyed with no subtelty, it leaves nothing to the imagination.


If Nintendo hypothetically came out and told us that there was a specific message in MM, and pointed to all the subtle signs of it in the game, Zelda fans would go absolutely bonkers. The game would be much more amazing that way than in the scenario where they just ordered some colours and polygons with specific mechanics and it's left to the player to interpret it however they want.

It's like a David Lynch film. I watched two of his films, but lost interest in his films and respect for him as an artist when it became clear to me that there's no specific message he's getting accross in an abstract way.

If Erazerhead had a specific message, and it was depicted through the events of the movie, then it would have been the most insane movie ever. Without that it's just random abstract non-sensical scenes, anyone can do that if thet have the guts to do it.

 

[Teran]

The intention behind MM was to produce a game with as little labour a possible. They only had a year to make the game and it shows-

The whole 'Termina is a counterpart to Hyrule' was a cover for the fact that they didn't have time to model new characters, so they just used OoT ones.

The 3 day cycle was implemented so that places would have more replayability, meaning they didn't have to design more areas. Kind of like time trail or mirror modes, or increased difficulty modes.

The game isn't as symbolic as people think. The game has a deep and symbolic nature to accommodate the lack of dungeons. Symbolism, most of which conveyed through text or art styles, requires much less labour than dungeon design.

There's probably more examples I'm leaving out. The reason why no other Zelda is like MM is because they were never given such a small timeframe to be created (hence why they all have more dungeons). I love MM but the elements people are incorporating into their theorycraft are there for pragmatic reasons, not symbolic ones.

I've read it but I disagree with that interpretation. I think under that interpretation everything becomes subjective and virtually anything abstract and non-sensical becomes art.

To me, higher level art is portraying a specific story or message in the most abstract or creative way whilst still having the message or story decipherable.

That's why anyone with half a brain thinks that most mainstream Hollywood movies are complete trash. They just beat you over the head with a simplistic message that it conveyed with no subtelty, it leaves nothing to the imagination.


If Nintendo hypothetically came out and told us that there was a specific message in MM, and pointed to all the subtle signs of it in the game, Zelda fans would go absolutely bonkers. The game would be much more amazing that way than in the scenario where they just ordered some colours and polygons with specific mechanics and it's left to the player to interpret it however they want.

It's like a David Lynch film. I watched two of his films, but lost interest in his films and respect for him as an artist when it became clear to me that there's no specific message he's getting accross in an abstract way.

If Erazerhead had a specific message, and it was depicted through the events of the movie, then it would have been the most insane movie ever. Without that it's just random abstract non-sensical scenes, anyone can do that if thet have the guts to do it.

Post 30 000 says you are wrong. Miyamoto specifically stated in interviews that Majora's Mask had a deeper underlying message and it was for the player to delve into the game and figure it out.

The team was also given much more freedom with the game, as Nintendo is famous for being a very conservative company when it comes to its IPs (mostly because they know their fans are idiots), MM was what happened when people weren't confined to the same ****ty formula.

Majora's mask had fewer dungeons, sure, but overall the game is harder and has just as much content packed in as OoT. Also you can count Pirates' Fortress and Ikana Castle as dungeons imo, I mean **** they're for sure harder than Ocarina's first three dungeons anyway. Then add the fact that Stone Tower Temple is basically 2 temples in one (genius design brother)

Even if Majora's Mask was a fluke, it was still better than any other 3D Zelda in how it was actually compelling. I don't like comparing the 2D and the 3D (ALttP is better than Ocarina ***holes), so I won't go there. The developers DID make a point of making the characters, you know, characters. Like on day 3 if pop into the Milk Bar the bartender will say

"...As you can see, all of our customers have taken refuge. It may be my undoing, but I'm the sort of fellow who'll stay at his business through thick and thin. And I continue standing here at the counter hoping one of my favorite customers will appear... And I wasn't wrong. See? You stopped in."

You know what's great about things like this? They didn't NEED to do it. They could have just made him say the same old **** because hey on the final night who's going to talk to Milk Bar guy right? I mean **** that sidequests are gay, exploration is gay, and all I want are linear progessions with U ARE CHOSEN and U ARE HERO SO GO HERE NEXT AND DO EXACTLY THIS.

Also saying MM was the way it was because it was crammed into that timeframe is half right. Twilight Princess was pretty much complete in a couple years too (they pushed it back for Wii release only), but of course it made Link an adult and had 3 initiation dungeons which then led to the Master Sword which then led to a greater conspiracy in which Ganon was the main guy so that was like another 4 or 5 dungeons with nothing much of note in between because let's just do some gay cutscenes with some blonde kid and some dumb *****, then we'll throw you up against Ganon in Hyrule Castle with some Light Arrows and Zelda and it's a great Zelda game.

TP recycled the WW engine, stuck a dark palette on it, rehashed ALttP again, and there we have it. It was done in pretty much the same time as MM.

MM already had OoT's engine so that's a HUGE time saver. Recycled character models, again, a time saver. If you have 2 years to create some dungeons and locations with an engine you just created and know intimately, you're damn right you can churn out a game fast. They may have been rushed, but 2 years to come up with ideas to incorporate in a game is not a short time. The greatest innovations come through working around difficult obstacles. Sure a lot of their design choices did come from pragmatism, but they ended up doing it in a novel and very clever way. Honestly they could have probably made another ****ty ALttP rehash with only adult Link and have the fanboys lap it up, but they decided to go far far in another direction. The amount of effort put into each and EVERY character in Termina is second to none, really, none. So if you think everything about Majora's Mask is merely just some fallout effect of the devs rushing out a game, then you should stick to playing Twilight Princess.

 

[Luigitoilet]

For some reason I didn't expect Dre to have such a limited frame of reference and small-minded perspective on art. :/

It's almost like people don't want to really interact with a piece of art for themselves. Eraserhead isn't a puzzle and David Lynch's Intention or Lack Thereof isn't the Key to unlocking it. It's a series of images and sounds that you react to and interpret from your own life experience. Ssaying David Lynch movies are about nothing is to tell us that you failed to engage with them on a level beyond superficial Hollywood "storytelling" . Similarly, saying any deeper subtext present in Majora's Mask is incidental and therefore unimportant is to engage with Majora's Mask as if it were Tetris. It's interpretive failure.

Saying Death of the Author "makes" all art subjective is a bizarre statement to make, as if art isn't DEFINED by subjectivity in the first place. If you're stuck on the idea of objective theories, you might want to get away from the arts and move to the sciences.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Post 30 000 says you are wrong. Miyamoto specifically stated in interviews that Majora's Mask had a deeper underlying message and it was for the player to delve into the game and figure it out.

The team was also given much more freedom with the game, as Nintendo is famous for being a very conservative company when it comes to its IPs (mostly because they know their fans are idiots), MM was what happened when people weren't confined to the same ****ty formula.

It without a doubt has a completely different formula to it, what with the mask system, and the time travel. I don't believe any other Zelda game has even gone back to MM's system, which is a shame, but at the same time, makes MM unique as a Zelda title.

Majora's mask had fewer dungeons, sure, but overall the game is harder and has just as much content packed in as OoT. Also you can count Pirates' Fortress and Ikana Castle as dungeons imo, I mean **** they're for sure harder than Ocarina's first three dungeons anyway. Then add the fact that Stone Tower Temple is basically 2 temples in one (genius design brother)

I agree 100%. Four dungeons do not equate a shorter game. On the contrary, it's actually longer. I've seen glitchfest tool-assisted runs of both OoT and MM, with OoT being beaten faster than MM. That said, Stone Tower Temple remains my all time favorite dungeon in the Zelda series for being very unique.

The other three dungeons has this cutscene-esque quality where it shows the dungeon being revealed followed by dramatic music indicating you've discovered the dungeon. Stone Tower Temple, on the other hand, is more subtle. The fact that there are no cutscenes or dramatic music when you actually find it makes it unique enough. Then you add the fact that actually reaching the temple is a small dungeon by design in itself. If that wasn't enough - and going by your 2 dungeons in one argument - you get to the dungeon and spend whatever amount of time it takes to go through all the rooms and getting the items needed. I was sure I was going to get something that would allow Link to walk upside down, but no, after getting the Light Arrows it took me a while to figure out that the entire dungeon is what flips upside down, and it even becomes mirrored to boot. Just that alone impressed me so much, I literally bowed down before my TV in respect to the design of such a dungeon.

Even if Majora's Mask was a fluke, it was still better than any other 3D Zelda in how it was actually compelling. I don't like comparing the 2D and the 3D (ALttP is better than Ocarina ***holes), so I won't go there. The developers DID make a point of making the characters, you know, characters. Like on day 3 if pop into the Milk Bar the bartender will say

"...As you can see, all of our customers have taken refuge. It may be my undoing, but I'm the sort of fellow who'll stay at his business through thick and thin. And I continue standing here at the counter hoping one of my favorite customers will appear... And I wasn't wrong. See? You stopped in."

You know what's great about things like this? They didn't NEED to do it. They could have just made him say the same old **** because hey on the final night who's going to talk to Milk Bar guy right? I mean **** that sidequests are gay, exploration is gay, and all I want are linear progessions with U ARE CHOSEN and U ARE HERO SO GO HERE NEXT AND DO EXACTLY THIS.

Exactly. I'll be honest and say that I oftentimes find myself going all over Termina to see what people are up to as the moon is ready to make out with the Earth. The fact that each character has their own agenda and schedule makes it unlike any other Zelda game to date, and it's that kind of attention to detail I appreciate the most in any video game, let alone Majora's Mask.

Also, as for ALttP being better than OoT, I agree as far as game design goes. Of course, OoT has a great story and great dungeons and gameplay, etc., but what some people fail to realize, is that a lot of the puzzles in OoT owes itself to ALttP, such as bombing switches, or pushing objects onto a floor switch to keep it down... all came from ALttP.

Also saying MM was the way it was because it was crammed into that timeframe is half right. Twilight Princess was pretty much complete in a couple years too (they pushed it back for Wii release only), but of course it made Link an adult and had 3 initiation dungeons which then led to the Master Sword which then led to a greater conspiracy in which Ganon was the main guy so that was like another 4 or 5 dungeons with nothing much of note in between because let's just do some gay cutscenes with some blonde kid and some dumb *****, then we'll throw you up against Ganon in Hyrule Castle with some Light Arrows and Zelda and it's a great Zelda game.

TP recycled the WW engine, stuck a dark palette on it, rehashed ALttP again, and there we have it. It was done in pretty much the same time as MM.

MM already had OoT's engine so that's a HUGE time saver. Recycled character models, again, a time saver. If you have 2 years to create some dungeons and locations with an engine you just created and know intimately, you're damn right you can churn out a game fast. They may have been rushed, but 2 years to come up with ideas to incorporate in a game is not a short time. The greatest innovations come through working around difficult obstacles. Sure a lot of their design choices did come from pragmatism, but they ended up doing it in a novel and very clever way. Honestly they could have probably made another ****ty ALttP rehash with only adult Link and have the fanboys lap it up, but they decided to go far far in another direction. The amount of effort put into each and EVERY character in Termina is second to none, really, none. So if you think everything about Majora's Mask is merely just some fallout effect of the devs rushing out a game, then you should stick to playing Twilight Princess.

^ This

 

[Dre89]

Teran- Of course Miyamoto is going to hype the symbolic aspect of the game, that's the game's draw and what it's defined by. He's not going to come out and say "we did it this way because it's the most pragmatic".

I think you're slightly misunderstanding me. I never said MM was a bad game, it's tied with WW as my favourite Zelda (I like WW's art style and the fluidity of the controls) I also never said that it lacked content. What I said was that the majority of the content (sidequests, NPCs etc.) required less labour.

All I was trying to point out was that most of the elements people were incorporaing into their theorycraft were pragmatic elements.

LT- I just said that Hollywood movies are trash yet you bundle me in with those people. Firstly, I know how Erazerhead works. Lynch made the movie of abstract imagery with a personal meaning to him, and just let people derive their own meaning from it.

Whilst still art, to me that is a lower art form than using equally abstract/creative/provocative imagery, but also giving it a specific decipherable meaning that ties in with the rest of the imagery in the movie, to tell a very complex and abstract story or message.

I'm not talking about a movie where it basically tells you what happens, I'm still talking about an Erazerhead-like movie which you would need to watch multiple times to get the full picture, but a picture that's designed to be decipherable.

It's easier to make something complex that is left to open interpretation, naturally more complex things divide opinion more often. I think it's much harder to make something complex in which if you analalyse it enough, you can derive the objective meaning.

Again, it's like a puzzle. A puzzle gets better and better the more difficult it gets, until it gets to the point where it becomes too difficult to answer, or there is no answer at all. To me straddling that line is the highest form of art.

I know EH wasn't a puzzle, but it's easier to create complex imagery that has no answer, or where any answer is correct, than equally complex imagery where only one answer is correct.

I've drawn and coloured visual representations of my mental states before. I could transition that into a film, but to me that wouldn't be a very high form of art. I think creating from your experiences is a lower form art than creating things external to your experience.

People harp on about how art is so subjective, but I doubt those people would like to concede that Erazerhead is not an objectively better film than Sex in the City. EH is definitely objectively better, even when you factor in that they have different target markets.

Yes there is some degree of subjectivity, but also objectivity as well. The complete subjecivity concept contradicts the way we use the word 'art'.

 

[Luigitoilet]

meh, agree to disagree I guess. I don't find fulfillment in making delineations between "high art" and "low art" or singularizing a piece of art so it has one "objective meaning". I approach art from an emotional standpoint and as such chiefly interpret it that way. The level of pragmatism involved in making any piece of art is irrelevant to the experience of the art itself. Sometimes this leads to interesting scenarios where even the creators themselves have misinterpreted their own work; Blade Runner for example. To bring that to the topic at hand, while it's probably true that the spiritual and symbolic elements of Majora's Mask are a product of a short development cycle...how is that interesting in the least? How does that make for a more involving piece of art? What does it even have to do with the experience the players have with the game?

Also, I would disagree at your statement that "Eraserhead is objectively better than Sex in the City" or that even any proponents of Death of the Author would argue such a thing. You would have to go through each individual aspect of filmmaking comparing the two films to make some sort of "this is better than this" but still at the end of the day you only have a metric of the craft, not of the art. What is Eraserhead "better" at? Why is it such an apparent and obvious truth to you? What are these objective artistic qualities you speak of? Unless you are talking about the quality of cinematography, framing, audio, production values etc., in and of themselves (as opposed to the amalgam of these photographic/filmic techniques that build up the emotional experience of the product as a whole i.e. the finished film), I find it hard to swallow "Eraserhead is objectively better, because it is better."

also, just curious, but why do you spell it Erazerhead with a Z?

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Citizen Kane is better, because it just is

 

[Holder of the Heel]

What is being said isn't complicated, it is like an absurdist's view on purpose in life, they don't believe there is one, but it is advisable to act ironically in the face of that to find your own purpose, keeping in mind that there is nothing really there that is the bigger picture. I've said that before basically, just confused as to why there is more than that to say about it.

Also, Teran makes the best Zelda posts ever. The characters were really good.. even the children on the moon with their questions was so captivating and mysterious to me. It was like this interesting world where the wasn't pain or anything, just games and fun. I mean, that was the atmosphere in my view. And then all of them looking like the mask salesman and all of them interested in collecting masks of happiness (which is probably why they didn't play with the kid wearing the Majora Mask, which had no happiness like a typical mask). I suppose there was a deeper meaning with this particular game in some aspects.

Oh, and I love the Fierce Deity Mask being portrayed as even more evil as Majora's Mask? Just random interesting things. Wish they capitalized on it, The Fierce Deity Mask could be the real threatening mask, and you can find out that the Majora's Mask was constructed for the purpose of destroying the righteous (but in the dangerous ideal way) Deity Mask (which would explain why Majora called you the bad guy when you get it) but either has to destroy it in a fight or has a personal vendetta that caused Majora to want to best it in battle.

 

[Teran]

Teran- Of course Miyamoto is going to hype the symbolic aspect of the game, that's the game's draw and what it's defined by. He's not going to come out and say "we did it this way because it's the most pragmatic".

I don't see why he'd hype something that wasn't there. This is Shigeru Miyamoto not Peter Molyneux.

Edit: I always had a differeny view on the FD mask. I remember the Gossip Stone in Ikana saying it had the merits of all masks. To me those merits were more the stories and the hardships behind obtaining the masks, something which the Happy Mask Salesman can tell just by looking at them. Maybe a mask holds its story and one who is experienced can see the story.

Anyway, I like to think of the FD mask as the culmination of all the great things you've done in Termina, undoing the personal misery in people's lives. The power of all the hope and happiness you've given people crushes the power of spite and hatred that Majora has. But it's just... a theory.

Majora obviously thinks it's evil because he's bat**** insane and a complete ***hole. Bratty kids think their reasonable parents are ***holes, so ****, what do you expect a psychotic genocide hopeful to do?

 

[Dre89]

meh, agree to disagree I guess. I don't find fulfillment in making delineations between "high art" and "low art" or singularizing a piece of art so it has one "objective meaning". I approach art from an emotional standpoint and as such chiefly interpret it that way. The level of pragmatism involved in making any piece of art is irrelevant to the experience of the art itself. Sometimes this leads to interesting scenarios where even the creators themselves have misinterpreted their own work; Blade Runner for example. To bring that to the topic at hand, while it's probably true that the spiritual and symbolic elements of Majora's Mask are a product of a short development cycle...how is that interesting in the least? How does that make for a more involving piece of art? What does it even have to do with the experience the players have with the game?

My point was that the developers weren't getting at a deeper meaning. You can create your own meanings, but then virtually any theory is viable. If people enjoy making theories for the sake of it then that's fine, but they must accept that they won't hold any truth.

Also, I would disagree at your statement that "Eraserhead is objectively better than Sex in the City" or that even any proponents of Death of the Author would argue such a thing. You would have to go through each individual aspect of filmmaking comparing the two films to make some sort of "this is better than this" but still at the end of the day you only have a metric of the craft, not of the art. What is Eraserhead "better" at? Why is it such an apparent and obvious truth to you? What are these objective artistic qualities you speak of? Unless you are talking about the quality of cinematography, framing, audio, production values etc., in and of themselves (as opposed to the amalgam of these photographic/filmic techniques that build up the emotional experience of the product as a whole i.e. the finished film), I find it hard to swallow "Eraserhead is objectively better, because it is better."

I probably worded that wrong. I shouldnt've said 'EH is a better movie' but 'EH is a more artistic movie' because many different criterion could go into 'better movie' such as profit target market size etc.

EH is a more artistic film because it's more creative and abstract. It forces you to think more than SITC does. Now SITC doesn't exactly try to be artistic but my point is that it's fair to say EH is objectively more artistic.

I consider SITC a bad movie, but not simply because it's a chick flick. Bridgette Jones' Diary, Easy A and maybe The Devil Wears Prada are all chick flicks I respect as good movies despite not really being a fan of the genre or having seen many. I'm not so limited mentally as to let social gender constructs prevent me from watching feminine movies (even though most of those viewings were with a girlfriend) or listen to more feminime music.

To me, pure subjectivity makes the concept of art redundant. If an objective criteria is not required to be fulfilled to be considered art, then pretty much anything can be considered art and being called art is redundant and no longer a compliment.

also, just curious, but why do you spell it Erazerhead with a Z?

I'm Australian.