The Evil Floating Skull: A Story of a Life
http://rpcsandbox.wikidot.com/skkuuulllsss
HALLOWEEN ARTICLE BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
all criticism is welcome :)
The Evil Floating Skull: A Story of a Life
Forum
» Writing & Drafts / Drafts
» The Evil Floating Skull: A Story of a Life
a volunteering member will willing become
will willingly become
review of its current script is recommended, if only to verify protocol integrity.
I'd personally cut it down to "to verify protocol integrity". It comes off as too casual for me
RPC-614 only takes a minor role as a prompt
I think you meant prop here?
RPC-614 when discussion its acting history
when discussing its acting history
Laramie, Wyoming, USA.
I remember that being Egger's hometown, I suppose it's intentional? Anyways,
the Office of Financial Affairs has found RPC-614's current containment protocols as UNSUSTAINABLE
I recommend using something like "deemed" or "declared" rather than found, it doesn't fit the all-caps, bolded, big-red-bureaucrat-stamp judgmental seriousness of UNSUSTAINABLE
First of all, the implication the researchers were spamming petitions to their higher ups to save 614 from Das Unendlich Rapemachinen brought a lot of life into the story's background, and of course it's fittingly bittersweet.
I find the ending ironic because the first thing 614's deal reminded me of is people on the internet "improving" old media by upscaling it with AI. In a way, 614 could be seen an allegory to AI itself, like those videos where it animates a still from a movie into a completely different direction, less offensive to artistic sensibilities but still vandalizing the directors' movies for its own gratification. Even funnier if you consider the similarity with sentient anomaly rights not being granted to infohazards like him and all the discourse over sentient AI and AI art legitimacy.
I found 614 hard to emphatize with (though it's obvious this is the moral dilemma you wanted to show here); he's got good intentions but the consequences of 614's anomaly are too large and any joy he may bring to others is only made manageable bleeding funds off an organization that also needs said money so their staff doesn't get airborne AIDS or sinks an endless pit under New York through negligence, it feels less like a story of a downtrodden soul of an artist being grinded by an uncaring corporate world and more like a story of a kid becoming a paralytic because he wanted to play Tarzan with power lines. A story of good intentions leading into Hell and life's love for disproportionate punishments.
I'm glad you didn't try to twist my arm into automatically feeling sad for 614 despite his personality and predicament and left the audience with the choice to decide their own feelings on the matter. Or maybe you didn't in which case fuck you fuck you kill yourself 1/5 stars outsourcing your job to a chatbot ran by a call center in Mumbai
ConProcs
You might want to put some paragraph breaks in the containment notice, it looks a bit cluttered all single spaced like that.
their humane implementation to adhere to Authority standards.
“Their human implementation in adherence with Authority standards.”
thus not adhered to UNAAC's Humane Anomalous Treatment Act of 2014, Section 4, Addendum 1.2b.
“Thus is not protected by UNAAC’s…”
Description
I’m having a really hard time understanding how RPC-614 actually works. Does someone who knows about it have to watch a movie?
While preferred, RPC-614 does not always take a speaking or active role in the affected film.
“RPC-614 does not always take a speaking or active role in the affected film but does display a preference for doing so.”
Only knowledge of RPC-614 as an entity in a cinematic medium causes an individual to become a "carrier" for RPC-614
What else is RPC-614 if not an entity in a cinematic medium?
Testing has revealed RPC-614 to not change
“Does not”
Titles should always be in italics
Discovery
a faithful parody of the film
“Of the original film”
Further inspection of the film's advertisement proved similarly altered.
“It had been similarly altered”
as did public archival of it
“As did publically available versions…”
but no known activation
“No identifiable method of activation.”
Infection of the film was successful,
“The film was successfully infected” to remove awkward passive voice.
Is there really any point to the faux Shakespeare? It feels like it would make an interview difficult.
Final Thoughts
I like the concept, but this feels like a let down of a good idea. The explanation of how it works doesn’t feel very well thought out and I was just confused. The ending also didn’t sit right with me. It feels unnecessarily cruel, but not over the top enough to swing back around to being funny. It really feels discordant with an otherwise humorous article. In its current form I might give it a 2/5 but I think it could be improved fairly easily.
Situation normal, Cap'n! Spiraling out of control!
RPC-614 will alter the plot, screenplay, advertisement and title of the film to include itself as a centerpiece. This effect is not isolated to the individual viewing of the infected film; all previous visual media pertaining the film will be similarly altered.
Then
Testing has revealed RPC-614 to not change the original script of any affected film.
I suggest something like “Testing has revealed RPC-614 to never change a film’s overall narrative; alterations are limited to inserting itself or replacing characters.” More clear.
But yeah the description makes it unclear the type of changes that will be made to the film. The later example only inserts RPC-614, and it remains a bit vague whether the questions were decided by researchers previously or were changed to fit the skull. (The question with the vintage movies, was that an alteration or part of the original?)
Also unclear how related material has to be before being altered.
There is suspicion that “The Screaming Skull” original story may have been changed, but it is confirmed that the script of “The Dagger” wasn’t. I remain unsure if the effect is just not absolute, or if this is an oversight.
An in-movie, scrolling script was placed in the left corner of the film at 1% opacity to verify the effects of the anomaly regarding written text referential to itself.
If this is the same piece of media through the same projector, shouldn’t it just count as a part of the movie itself or does this thing work based on viewer interpretation of what is “in-movie”?
The ending is pretty funny. I think it would be cool to see some AI psychosis but that might be out of the scope.
the short story was similarly affected by it due to its relation with the film.
Description says only visual media is affected.
OPEN: An Interview With The Skull - IN-MOVIE SCRIPT
Collapsible format is inconsistent
**GENERAL CONTAINMENT AUDIT - Site-112 | RPC-614 **
Formatting
visual media pertaining the film will be similarly altered.
to the
/forum/t-17389812/the-evil-floating-skull:a-story-of-a-life#post-