SCP-1013 / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-1013.

page 1 of 41234next »

Dr Gears 13 Aug 2011 01:02

from the contest thread:

I made a entry: http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-1000drgears

It's a cockatrice, which seems dumb, but…well…

…

…ok, here it is. I was going to do something more urban myth-ish, but my daughter was watching My Little Pony while i was trying to work out the idea. The episode had a cockatrice in it, and i wondered "why the hell do they do that? what's the point of turning things to stone, really? Wait, what if it's only the outside…just to keep prey still, then they chip inside and eat out all the soft bits…"

So…yeah. Blame this one on my daughter and My Little Pony. That was hard to admit to…

I am a little ashamed of myself, honestly….

Chubert 13 Aug 2011 01:15

ohjeez, um, it takes a sick, twisted mind to turn MLP into something like this?

It's like a burrito! Except, argh, it's 9 in the morning and I'm kinda scared.

DrGuin 13 Aug 2011 20:53

This was inspired by My Little Pony? New favorite SCP backstory.

Sophia Light 13 Aug 2011 01:41

I like it.
I think my favorite part is how, to take the picture, the cockatrice must have been staring right at the photographer.
:)

Dr Gears 13 Aug 2011 01:45

I think the neck-frill bit would be the worst…

*FWOOF*
"What the fuck was…aw shit."

it was insanely hard finding a picture for this that wasn't from a video game or a dark-age woodcut…

Exun Yannah 13 Aug 2011 01:56

darn good, Gears. Now I just have to make sure my lizard legend doesn't seem too much like a copy when its finally done >.<

Still, 1 up.

Salman Corbette 13 Aug 2011 01:56

In suppose it's well written, but nothing about his article really sticks out. I feel like I could wake up in the morning and remember nothing about this article aside from the fact that it was a cockatrice. IMO, one of the main problems is that it's a cockatrice, which although combines well with tales of old when everybody gathered around a story-teller and listen to him or her shout and make scary voices, does not combine well with the clinical and scientific tone of the Foundation. Sooo… -1.

Dr Gears 13 Aug 2011 02:15

I honestly have to agree…this is just a concept i've been thinking about for a long time, the whole "why petrify" question. If it makes it, i may clean it up more, if not, the world is none the worse…

thedeadlymoose 13 Aug 2011 03:19

If it makes it, i may clean it up more, if not, the world is none the worse…

Hey, entries to this contest that remain in the positives will also be given SCP slots (just only the highest rated will be given the actual SCP-1000 slot). So I say work on it now! Plenty of potential here.

Anaxagoras 13 Aug 2011 03:13

I have to agree. This is a professionally done article, but there just isn't much to it. The only things this adds to the legend is an explanation for the petrification, and the thing with the frill. The former makes so much sense that it just sinks without really being noted. The frill is clever and why I'm not downvoting this, but this isn't worth an upvote either.

Just like with SCPs of real things, SCPs of real legends need to in some way be more interesting than the thing they're based on.

thedeadlymoose 13 Aug 2011 03:17

Just like with SCPs of real things, SCPs of real legends need to in some way be more interesting than the thing they're based on.

While I do agree this article could use something more, I would argue this is a bit more interesting than the mythical cockatrice. More horrifying, that's for sure.

thedeadlymoose 13 Aug 2011 03:16

I like this, and I've upvoted. I really like the angle you've taken on the cockatrice; the calcification is pretty horrifying. And I'm a sucker for well-done myth-based SCPs. Plus there are plenty of little details in here that are great. Couple examples:

SCP-1000 has been noted to use natural body openings (mouth and eyes, primarily) on occasion

(dear god)

Subjects have responded poorly to questioning during feeding, resulting in a lack of direct data about this progression.

However…

This is simply not as memorable as I would like. The detail work here (and, of course, your previous work) tells me that this could be even better. Also, this is pretty long for the amount of horror we get out of it; it could stand to be both expanded upon (with more delightful creepy horror stuff) and cut down.

What's here already is enough for an upvote, but I also look forward to seeing where this goes.

Last edited on 13 Aug 2011 04:14 by thedeadlymoose Show more

Dr Gears 13 Aug 2011 03:38

this actually helps a lot…I may try and crack this a bit, combine a few sections and see if i can add a bit to the horror without being too cheesy about it. At the moment though, i'm very tired, and i tend to ramble pretty bad when i'm tired, so…yeah. Still, this helps.

DrSevere 13 Aug 2011 13:16

I like this and upvoted it.

That being said, I found it a little odd than you use the term "calcification" several times early on, and then about half way down put it in quotes and treat it like a new word:

The outer skin tissues will begin a rapid “calcification”, growing very dense and inflexible over several minutes

I feel like you either need to define it earlier or just don't define it like that at all; I figured what you mean.

Other than that, this just feels a tad bit rough around the edges. I would like to see some of the phrasing smoothed out and the organization improved a bit.

This all just me being nitpicky however, overall I enjoyed this one.

Dr Gears 13 Aug 2011 13:56

dang it, knew i missed something…did a lot of shuffling edits, and didn't catch the quote changes. I'll buff that a bit, and see if i can't tighten up the phrasing some more. I keep finding little things with this one…god help me, i might actually be getting alright at editing…

ethic 13 Aug 2011 16:45

This is pretty cool, but I think what it needs is a bit more terror. Keters tend to cost me some sleep. I can't tell if the language is too impersonal to be scary or not impersonal enough, or maybe that isn't even the issue. But yeah, a scare factor, maybe something that makes it harder to contain, along with a reason not to just kill it would be good. Because my first instinct is "kill it".
Maybe you could detail how the calcified staff are disposed of in the procedures, you could make that pretty unsettling.

Dexanote 13 Aug 2011 17:35

They're incinerated; simple.

Salman Corbette 13 Aug 2011 17:55

Whatever is calcified is recycled and used in the construction of the thing's containment area.

Anaxagoras 13 Aug 2011 18:19

Why on earth would they do that? The Foundation most certainly has the resources to build a box.

V for Anonymous 23 Nov 2013 21:55

Because this are resources they could recycle so that they have extra to build said "box" to hold a bigger, badder SCP, that's why. The SCP foundation is anything but wasteful. I mean, yes, they CAN make a box on their own, why waste the resources when this thing is practically giving free supplies.

But on a side note: shouldn't this be Euclid? Wasn't the original def. for Euclid animal-like or primal? And this thing hardly poses a global threat, I mean it poses a threat, but no way it'd be global, even with it's babies.

Dexanote 13 Aug 2011 17:36

Good god. This is fantastic. I could never figure out how to make a cockatrice into an SCP. Applause.

Communism will win 13 Aug 2011 21:12

This just doesn't scare me, sorry.

---

if your reading this your gay

page 1 of 41234next »