Fresh new sitcom idea: a spinoff of Modern Family but it’s 1536 and the dissolution of the monasteries is in full swing. The patriarch is a secret Catholic and is hiding this from his long suffering wife and children. The guilt is eating him alive but he puts a brave face on things and has a reputation for being a total lad, a real joker, a good-time guy. Spoiler alert: they’re all secretly Catholic but hiding it from the others. The family is tearing itself apart at the seams. Secrecy lurks beneath every punchline. It’s a fun-filled series of heartwarming, wacky japes, set during the reign of terror of Henry VIII.
Me: makes a post which I’m pretty pleased with, solely on a lololol level
@rubiscothegeek: just casually adds the funniest fucking thing I’ve ever read as a reply
ALT
Working title Mass Appeal
All three priests are played by Danny DeVito in different wigs
This is absolutely fascinating. I’ve now been looking at Alex Colville’s paintings and trying to work out what it is about them that makes them look like CGI and how/why he did that in a world where CGI didn’t exist yet. Here’s what I’ve got so far:
- Total lack of atmospheric perspective (things don’t fade into the distance)
- Very realistic shading but no or only very faint shadows cast by ambient light.
- Limited interaction between objects and environment (shadows, ripples etc)
- Flat textures and consistent lighting used for backgrounds that would usually show a lot of variation in lighting, colour and texture
- Bodies apparently modelled piece by piece rather than drawn from life, and in a very stiff way so that the bodies show the pose but don’t communicate the body language that would usually go with it. They look like dolls.
- Odd composition that cuts off parts that would usually be considered important (like the person’s head in the snowy driving scene)
- Very precise drawing of structures and perspective combined with all the simplistic elements I’ve already listed. In other words, details in the “wrong” places.
What’s fascinating about this is that in early or bad CGI, these things come from the fact that the machine is modelling very precisely the shapes and perspectives and colours, but missing out on some parts that are difficult to render (shadows, atmospheric perspective) and being completely unable to pose bodies in such a way as to convey emotion or body language.
But Colville wasn’t a computer, so he did these same things *on purpose*. For some reason he was *aiming* for that precise-but-all-wrong look. I mean, mission accomplished! The question in my mind is, did he do this because he was trying to make the pictures unsettling and alienating, or because in some way, this was how he actually saw the world?
omf i never thought i’d find posts about alex colville on tumblr, but! he’s a local artist where i’m from & i work at a library/archives and have processed a lot of documents related to his art. just wanted to give my two cents!
my impression is that colville did see the world as an unsettling place and a lot of his work was fueled by this general ~malaise?? but in a lot of cases, he was trying to express particular fears or traumas. for instance, this painting (horse and train) was apparently inspired by a really tragic experience his wife had:
iirc she was in a horrible automobile crash, as the car she was in collided with a train. i find it genuinely horrifying to look at, knowing the context, but a lot of colville’s work is like that? idk he just seems to capture the feeling you get in nightmares where everything is treacle-ish and slow and inevitable.
Is it okay to believe in hopeful universalism? To say with certainty all men are saved may be jerest but are we allowed to hope God's mercy can extend to all men's eternities?
Do you think there's any hope that universalism might be true? I have so many friends and family who aren't believers, and the idea of them burning in eternal hell is a horrifying thought.
Universalism is a heresy, if we are understanding it by the defined theological/philosophical concept that all people regardless of action or belief are saved.
Though, also understand that salvation in the eyes of Catholicism is an extremely tricky topic, and it is definitely not as simple as “anyone who is not a believer goes to hell”. There’s a lot of contributing factors to consider that can cause mitigation.
This is the greatest map I have ever seen. I want an interactive version where you can click on any city in the world and get a pop-up list of all the climate-equivalent cities.
so it turns out this exists and it makes a fine rabbit hole for passing the time during a conference call
OK, this is super neat and also a great tool for writers’
“dont adopt from kill shelters” is literally the worst advice. that’s exactly where you need to be adopting from.
private no-kill shelters have the advantage of choosing what animals they take it and adopt out; they have the option to turn animals away if they’re full.
kill shelters are often public institutions that legally cannot turn away any animal brought to them, they are always overpopulated and only end up euthanizing as a last resort for animals who don’t get adopted because they need the physical space for the next animal they just got in. when you adopt from kill shelters you are both saving the life of a dog that might have been put down in a few months AND the life of the next dog the shelter now has room for.
like there’s nothing wrong with adopting from no-kill shelters, those animals need adopting too. but STOP telling people not to “support” kill shelters by adopting from them.
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
ALT
