| Author |
Topic:
What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
|
Laszlo
Registered:
Nov '06
|
Date Posted:
1/7 7:43pm
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
|
Well, a good fan film has a good idea behind it, and classic science fiction is generally more about BIG IDEAS than BIG GUNS. It usually asks 'ok, how would the world be different if we change it one thing' i.e.: add robots, space travel, cloning, nannites, talking pig, a bomb that only destroys chocolate, etc, etc. It bears mentioning that Azimov hated Star Wars, seeing it as a bastardization of his own work and those if his generation... people wanted the toys if sci-fi but didn't want to be bothered with the responsibility as they'd rather see a light show.
I mention this because... well it’s funny that you can look at fan films as even further bastardization; what meagre concepts and depth the story had is even further watered down to flash and light. Like the weakest adaptations it takes more than putting on the costumes and going though the motions, but too many folks can't get past that part of fan films. Which is a shame really, because short films are usually such a great forum for cool little sci-fi ideas; just look at stuff like Something Real or Silent City.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
RocketGirl
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
1/7 8:18pm
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
|
Laszlo posted:
Well, a good fan film has a good idea behind it, and classic science fiction is generally more about BIG IDEAS than BIG GUNS. It usually asks 'ok, how would the world be different if we change it one thing' i.e.: add robots, space travel, cloning, nannites, talking pig, a bomb that only destroys chocolate, etc, etc.
See, I've always been less than thrilled with those kind of stories, especially the ones that attempt to be cautionary tales. One of the things I actually LOVE about Star Wars is that it takes all of this stuff for granted, much the way we, today, take cars and cell phones and iPods and computers and DVDs and all of that stuff for granted. Quite frankly, when the question is asked, "How would the world be different if we changed this one thing?" the answer is usually that, though the world would be different, PEOPLE really wouldn't be. I look at all the things I have now that I didn't ten years ago, and my lifestyle really hasn't changed all that much, frankly.
I've seen and read far too many stories in which technological change brings about radical societal change. Stories like Logan's Run or Blade Runner or Brave New World or Fahrenheit 451...I really detest stories like that. I find myself rolling my eyes and going, "Oh, puh-LEEZ!"; people just aren't going to change into that! And certainly not as a result of the introduction of new technology or science!
Yet these are probably the kinds of stories that more classically-minded sci-fi buffs expect from sci-fi, and probably why they hate things like Star Wars, where the technology really isn't the POINT, where it is taken for granted by the inhabitants of that movie world...as it would be in the real world, much as they'd hate to admit it.
Laszlo posted:
It bears mentioning that Azimov hated Star Wars, seeing it as a bastardization of his own work and those if his generation... people wanted the toys if sci-fi but didn't want to be bothered with the responsibility as they'd rather see a light show.
Yes, well...I'd rather see a story told in which people behave as people and do things, have adventures, fall in love, do whatever people do, rather than, "Gosh, look at this technology! Look at the changes it had wrought! Oh my, oh my!"
If that's all science fiction is allowed to be according to--forgive me--prigs like Asimov, then I'm rather glad that we have people like George Lucas who are willing to step outside that mold and make something that you don't need an engineering degree to write or read.
Laszlo posted:
I mention this because... well it’s funny that you can look at fan films as even further bastardization; what meagre concepts and depth the story had is even further watered down to flash and light.
This is true, and I've lamented its occurance...but it's the lack of depth and story that matter to me, not the lack of paying undue attention to science, as Asimov would have preferred.
Laszlo posted:
Like the weakest adaptations it takes more than putting on the costumes and going though the motions, but too many folks can't get past that part of fan films.
Well, I assure you, I made The Last Remnants with getting past that quite firmly in mind.
Oh, don't worry; there'll be a huge battle to satisfy even the most bloodthirsty FX fan. But first, you'll be treated to a story that explores the methodology of the Rebel Alliance, the history of a planet on the Outer Rim, political leaders, freedom fighters, oppressors, and what motivates all of them. I did my damnedest to write engaging characters with real motivations and goals and weaknesses and strengths. It's entirely possible that I've failed in that...but it wasn't for lack of good intentions!
[shameless plug]Heck, you can even see allusions to it in the trailer.[/shameless plug]  Not a lot, but the trailer is supposed to be flash to draw people in; the final film actually has quite a lot of dialogue that help to both drive the story forward and introduce people to who these characters really are.
I wish more fan films did that...but you're right that most folks care a lot less about truly telling a Star Wars story than about being seen in Jedi gear with a lightsaber, fighting.
-----signature-----
Introducing new Dark Side RocketGirl™: Quicker, Easier, More Seductive!™
"Duuude, the fat guy totally just blew up!" -Pink Five
"Lectroids? Planet 10? Nuclear extortion? A girl named 'John'?"
"We gotta go to the crappy town where I'M a hero!"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarkSapiens
Registered:
Oct '05
|
Date Posted:
1/8 8:35am
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
- Date Edited:
1/8 9:02am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
DarkSapiens
|
RocketGirl posted:
This is the equivalent of having someone start to tell you a joke that goes, "Okay, so a duck walks into a bar and says to the bartender..." and you're suddenly like, "Wait a minute! Ducks waddle, not walk! Why would a duck be going into a bar? And ducks can't talk! What kind of stupid joke is this???". The only response I can give is, "Dude...you're just not getting into this properly. Willingly suspend a little disbelief, will ya? For the purposes of this joke, it just works like that, awright?"
That would apply just to two of the things I said, but the MIR thing is one of the things that equal the girl screaming at the zombie instead of running away. But those were only examples.
You could say that thinking about how science would apply to some story is like that, I'll say that it's not. AT ALL. 
It's kinda ironic to see that most people that DON'T think about these things assume that we do that in the way they imagine. If you believe that thinking about science on films implies that you said, you're wrong. You can't say that if you don't know...
RocketGirl posted:
Or, to put it another way, I'm basically saying that, in the case of science, this sort of a thing matters a lot less than with the psychology of the characters and their interactions.
Well... as I said, there are situations in which science affects interactions between characters.
And just like medicine if the character is a doctor, warfare if it's a general, diplomacy if it's a politician (or the characters that appear in your fanfilm). As you can't take those abilities off, you shouldn't make that only in the case that it's science the matter involved. You've stated that science doesn't matter to you in films. Ok, but you shouldn't assume that it doesn't matter in general, to anybody or in any case. 'Cause in some cases it could be important, or even be the centre of the story.
The duck thing was just about a funny joke, and StarWars was conceived more as a fantasy story; so breaking some natural laws has not such importance.
But in sci-fi, most of the time, the story is related to science (that's why it's called that way, duh). So when they make eye-sci-fi films, and give all importance to the eye part, the film becomes only an FX show. And that misses the entire point of the genre, that in most cases has a lot to do with social and moral issues, using technology and science as an excuse to see what could happen if the society was somewhat different than the one we are used to see.
-----signature-----
"Our cruisers can't repel firepower of that magnitude!" "Impressive... Most impressive... Obi-Wan has tought you well." Chase over Endor: http://boards.theforce.net/scifi_3d_forum/b10013/23057645/p1/ Animator in "Star Wars: Threads of Destiny"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
RocketGirl
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
1/8 8:58am
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
|
DarkSapiens posted:
It's kinda ironic to see that most people that DON'T think about these things assume that we do that in the way they imagine. If you believe that thinking about science on films implies that you said, you're wrong. You can't say that if you don't know...
There is no part of this paragraph that makes sense. Too many "that"s floating around without defining what they are connected to, and it's obvious that not every "that" is indicating the same thing. Try again.
DS posted:
Well... as I said, there are situations in which science affects interactions between characters.
And just like medicine if the character is a doctor, warfare if it's a general, diplomacy if it's a politician (or the characters that appear in your fanfilm). As you can't take those abilities off, you shouldn't make that only in the case that it's science the matter involved.
I don't. YOU brought up science bugging you in movies where the rules of real-world science aren't slavishly followed, so I deal with that; this concept is pretty universally applied to any such discipline or methodology.
DS posted:
You've stated that science doesn't matter to you in films. Ok, but you shouldn't assume that it doesn't matter in general, to anybody or in any case. 'Cause in some cases it could be important, or even be the centre of the story.
Yes, indeed. However, that doesn't negate the fact that you should be taking the film on its own terms instead of judging it by the standards of the real world. If a film's premise includes the fact that, for the purposes of this story, A works this way, B works that way, and C works another way, and A, B, and C do not function in the fictional world as they do in the real world, and then YOU are unable or unwilling to willingly suspend your disbelief enough to incorporate that rather seamlessly into your judgment of the film, well...then I'd say the more likely case is that your imagination is broken and your inner child has been sent to its room, as opposed to the movie actually being badly written. Now, should A, B, and C be different from the real world inconsistently, changing their properties only in certain specific circumstances to further the plot, okay...I'm right there, calling bulldrek along with ya. But otherwise, I'm calling you too nit-picky, and if the fact that you have to suspend disbeleif and use your imagination to enjoy a film bothers you, I'd say your standards for watching fiction are out of whack.
DS posted:
But in sci-fi, most of the time, the story is related to science (that's why it's called that way, duh).
Except it's NOT. I can point to plenty of science fiction where it happens to be set in a world that doesn't exist but is scientifically plausible based on current knowledge, yet the science is taken largely for granted and it's mostly a story about people, and what they do to, for, and with other people.
Again, it all depends on your emphasis: is it SCIENCE fiction or is it science FICTION? Personally, I prefer the latter.
DS posted:
So when they make eye-sci-fi films, and give all importance to the eye part, the film becomes only an FX show. And that misses the entire point of the genre, that in most cases has a lot to do with social and moral issues, using technology and science as an excuse to see what could happen if the society was somewhat different than the one we are used to see.
Except that it's--forgive me--@#$%ing STUPID to insist the genre be limited so. It'd be like saying that a Western HAS to be about getting the Sheriff to have a gun fight with Black Bart, that no other use of the genre is permitted. Or that a fantasy story is only allowed to deal with the ramifications of having magic in the world, and how that affects the people. That these aspects of those worlds have to be the POINT, that you--as the author--have to have a socio-political point or some sort of thesis that explores these ramifications, and THAT'S the major point in writing your FICTION.
I'm sorry, but anyone who insists that the science fiction genre remain THAT limited and THAT focused can just go right ahead and bite me. Pretty much the only people I can think of who insist on that kind of doctrinal purity are police-state dictators and religious fanatics, and I don't think that science fiction writers really want to paint themselves into THAT corner.
-----signature-----
Introducing new Dark Side RocketGirl™: Quicker, Easier, More Seductive!™
"Duuude, the fat guy totally just blew up!" -Pink Five
"Lectroids? Planet 10? Nuclear extortion? A girl named 'John'?"
"We gotta go to the crappy town where I'M a hero!"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Laszlo
Registered:
Nov '06
|
Date Posted:
1/8 9:44am
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
|
I don't think DarkSapiens is insisting anything, he's just stating that eye-candy’s priority seems to be the rule, and story the exception, for films. And that’ll come to the usual debate about what makes a fan film ‘Serious’ – which if you couldn’t get by now was the point of my quoting Azimov. We’re agreed that story in most Star Wars fan films is lacking – while production values have expanded narratives tend wallow in fan fic quality writing. We disagree on the solutions… or perhaps not disagree on the solutions themselves but in our focus of the problems. My point, undeclared until now, was fan films could benefit by reaching a goal of better science fiction writing. I can imagine, RG, that you’d say no, since SW’s plots tend towards the more pulpy Cowboys & Aliens… but I’m not suggesting SW as a whole should suddenly switch to Hard SF, just the occasional fan film.
Take a typical SF tope: because of hyperdrives perhaps space ships have the ability to arrive faster than transmitted messages, thus couriers are used for extra-important messages. What would the life of such a courier be like? What kind of ship would they pilot? What if one such pilot broke the cardinal rule and read the message, and the begining said ‘kill the courier’?
Playing around with Hard SF isn’t all stuffy rules and mouldy science textbooks… they can often open up new possibilities you didn’t think about before. If-Therefore-Then.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarkSapiens
Registered:
Oct '05
|
Date Posted:
1/8 9:55am
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
- Date Edited:
1/8 10:09am (5 edits total)
Edited By:
DarkSapiens
|
To RocketGirl:
Oh, dear... you understand things the opposite way I intend to say when I write them, mostly because of the prejudice I wanted to state in my first point. Let's see a different approach:
1) To me, thinking about science in films does not spoil the story the way you said. In fact, that could be an excuse to think about that, and even in the way they could be possible in a scientific way, but keeping the film untouched. That would imply an enrichment of the film, not the contrary. Like thinking about how the Star Wars things could be possible, rather than just saying they're impossible.
2) What bothers me a bit is when, in a world where real-life Physics are working, they skip them just to make an FX show, and they fail to entertain people and don't contribute to the story at all. Those shots could be perfectly done the right way without breaking laws unnecessarily. What's more, they could make even cooler things with totally correct Physics. At least, if a part had only FX, there could be the detail of knowing that "hey, actually this could happen", and not "hey, look, we spent a lot of money in pyrotechnics and we just want to make extensive use of them in the film, no matter it is nonsense".
3) I don't think about science as a LIMITATION to fictional stories. In fact, science could actually expand them, adding details or even impressive scenes or stories you don't even think about if you don't take science into account. This happens especially in sci-fi, mostly because the environment and technology are very different to what we are used to.
4) Of course, if the film's premise includes the fact that A, B or C work in those ways for the purposes of the story, I pleasantly accept it and enjoy the film with those points in mind. In fact, it's often really interesting to think about what those A, B, C points would imply, or to see their consequences in the film. And that's thinking about science, too.
5) Again, I wasn't saying those statements as LIMITATIONS of the sci-fi genre. I wanted to say that science-fiction goes way further than science and technology, like when it talks about society or morals, just to give an example. I was implying that sci-fi doesn't have to be only about space or the future, and saying that, in fact, in the vast majority of cases, it isn't. It's just the way those stories are classified. For example, we could have just a love story. But if it happens in another planet, with advanced technology and such, it will be classified as science-fiction. If it happens in a world where there's magic and wizards or elves, it will be classified as fantasy. If it happens in the far west, it will be classified as a Western... and we could continue. But it could be the same story at the heart of it. It's just that it has some elements that are classified to belong to one genre or another. I think that's what you were implying, too...
EDIT: Oh, Laszlo, you replied when I was writing. Well... some of the points we made are similar.
In general, I agree with what you said. In fact, not only fanfilms (serious ones) can be of many different kind relating to their story, but most of the EU stuff does also. I've even read some Michael A. Stackpole StarWars novels that could be considered hard science fiction, but it implies no limitations to what it's told but rather helps to expand it and add some nice details, making it more interesting.
-----signature-----
"Our cruisers can't repel firepower of that magnitude!" "Impressive... Most impressive... Obi-Wan has tought you well." Chase over Endor: http://boards.theforce.net/scifi_3d_forum/b10013/23057645/p1/ Animator in "Star Wars: Threads of Destiny"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
RocketGirl
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
1/8 10:09am
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
|
Laszlo posted:
I don't think DarkSapiens is insisting anything
Except that he is. He's parroting a line espoused by many self-proclaimed "serious" science fiction authors who rather dogmatically insist that "their" genre should be about one thing and not another, that science fiction can and should only serve one rather specific purpose. This discussion was spawned by a quote from Asmiov, one of the proponents of that rather limiting notion, and whose writings I've never much cared for...probably because of that limiting notion, come to think of it.
Laszlo posted:
...he's just stating that eye-candy’s priority seems to be the rule, and story the exception, for films.
Which is more true now than it was even as little as twenty years ago, but even so...
Regardless, we got onto a slightly different topic than that for a bit, namely what science fiction can be FOR, and why.
Laszlo posted:
My point, undeclared until now, was fan films could benefit by reaching a goal of better science fiction writing. I can imagine, RG, that you’d say no, since SW’s plots tend towards the more pulpy Cowboys & Aliens… but I’m not suggesting SW as a whole should suddenly switch to Hard SF, just the occasional fan film.
Well, yes, I do disagree. Star Wars is not and never has been about science; you can throw around terms like 'repulsor lifts', 'hydrospanners', and 'deflector shields' with wild abandon and not ever have to explain how they work or even necessarily what they are...and that's half the fun of the series, and the genre in general.
What fan films would genuinely benefit from is an infusion of good character writing. In most fan films, the characters are there to simply hold the lightsabers, maybe spout a few lines lifted directly from the source material, nothing more; changing THAT is what would bring new life to the genre. Fan film writers should be writing about people instead of about fights, investing more time in figuring out who the characters are and why they do what they do (and if that even makes sense) than about getting them into battle. THAT is what will make fan films stronger.
Laszlo posted:
Playing around with Hard SF isn’t all stuffy rules and mouldy science textbooks… they can often open up new possibilities you didn’t think about before. If-Therefore-Then.
But by doing that, you make the characters servants of the situation, not the other way around; that's the problem with Hard SF. It's much like Lucas's quote about special FX, a special effect without a story is a very boring thing...well, a story not driven by people is a very boring thing, and that is the overriding characteristic of Hard SF: the story is driven by science, not by human nature.
When the point of the story is, "I, the author, have changed the world in some significant way, now let's see what happens!" I get pretty damn bored, frankly. I find this no more interesting than "I put two people who hate each other into the same room with lightsabers; let's see what happens!" I prefer my stories--ones I write and ones I watch--to be more about personalities and social interactions, while the science aspects are largely incidental; I don't mind if they affect the story, I just don't want them to be the POINT of the story, I don't want them to be the FOCUS. I find that very dull.
-----signature-----
Introducing new Dark Side RocketGirl™: Quicker, Easier, More Seductive!™
"Duuude, the fat guy totally just blew up!" -Pink Five
"Lectroids? Planet 10? Nuclear extortion? A girl named 'John'?"
"We gotta go to the crappy town where I'M a hero!"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
RocketGirl
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
1/8 10:27am
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
|
DarkSapiens posted:
To RocketGirl:
Oh, dear... you understand things the opposite way I intend to say when I write them, mostly because of the prejudice I wanted to state in my first point.
Actually, I think it's because of the way you write; I have a VERY difficult time parsing your sentences...by the end of them they seem to have gone off in wildly different directions from where they began, and there are a lot of ambiguous pronouns that could refer to multiple things.
DS posted:
1) To me, thinking about science in films does not spoil the story the way you said. In fact, that could be an excuse to think about that, and even in the way they could be possible in a scientific way, but keeping the film untouched. That would imply an enrichment of the film, not the contrary. Like thinking about how the Star Wars things could be possible, rather than just saying they're impossible.
That's just it, though: a lot of the appeal of Star Wars is that it DOESN'T spend time thinking about HOW. A lot of the appeal of Star Wars is the way people take technology and science for granted.
It's like the real world: I own a cell phone. Ten years ago, I didn't own a cell phone and they weren't nearly as ubiquitous as they are now. And the technology has changed dramatically since then, too; NOW, people can watch entire movies on their phones.
But nobody--except those who have to make them, and uber tech geeks--really think much about how they work. Except for being annoyed by people who talk on their phone while driving, the world hasn't changed all that much because of cell phones. We largely take them for granted.
That's how Star Wars is: they have technology, they use technology, but life goes on. They take it for granted.
And I really, really like that about it. Changing that, moving the focus of Star Wars away from the people and how they interact with each other, and moving the focus TOWARD exploring how tech in Star Wars works, is possible, and how it affects the GFFA, turns Star Wars into something it isn't, never was, and was never intended to be; it frankly misses the point.
DS posted:
2) What bothers me a bit is when, in a world where real-life Physics are working, they skip them just to make an FX show, and they fail to entertain people and don't contribute to the story at all. Those shots could be perfectly done the right way without breaking laws unnecessarily. What's more, they could make even cooler things with totally correct Physics. At least, if a part had only FX, there could be the detail of knowing that "hey, actually this could happen", and not "hey, look, we spent a lot of money in pyrotechnics and we just want to make extensive use of them in the film, no matter it is nonsense".
And my argument is that it's fiction, and you should treat it as such. Demanding slavish adherence to the real world in something that is, by its very nature, MADE UP, seems to me to be to miss the point entirely. Just go with it and have fun, dude.
DS posted:
3) I don't think about science as a LIMITATION to fictional stories. In fact, science could actually expand them, adding details or even impressive scenes or stories you don't even think about if you don't take science into account. This happens especially in sci-fi, mostly because the environment and technology are very different to what we are used to.
But by demanding that real-world science be adhered to, you actually DO limit yourself.
As a writer, you limit your imagination, certainly.
As a filmmaker, you might just limit yourself in terms of excitement and drama; I've seen real-world physics in action in a space battle and, frankly, it's BORING. The atmospheric flight model used by Star Wars ships may be entirely fake, but at least it's EXCITING.
As an audience member, you limit your enjoyment. I've watched far too many movies where I'm totally enjoying it, but some nerd-bag who has appointed himself a physics rules lawyer is having a conniption because they got something "wrong" scientifically. C'mon...it's FICTION; what, are we only allowed to break reality if there's actual MAGIC involved???
DS posted:
4) Of course, if the film's premise includes the fact that A, B or C work in those ways for the purposes of the story, I pleasantly accept it and enjoy the film with those points in mind. In fact, it's often really interesting to think about what those A, B, C points would imply, or to see their consequences in the film. And that's thinking about science, too.
But, see, even then, I HATE when that's the POINT of a movie. The best movies are about PEOPLE; A, B, and C are and should be incidental, events that happen or conditions that exist rather than the focus or premise of the movie.
DS posted:
5) Again, I wasn't saying those statements as LIMITATIONS of the sci-fi genre. I wanted to say that science-fiction goes way further than science and technology, like when it talks about society or morals, just to give an example. I was implying that sci-fi doesn't have to be only about space or the future, and saying that, in fact, in the vast majority of cases, it isn't. It's just the way those stories are classified. For example, we could have just a love story. But if it happens in another planet, with advanced technology and such, it will be classified as science-fiction. If it happens in a world where there's magic and wizards or elves, it will be classified as fantasy. If it happens in the far west, it will be classified as a Western... and we could continue. But it could be the same story at the heart of it. It's just that it has some elements that are classified to belong to one genre or another. I think that's what you were implying, too...
Yes, absolutely. But I was also pointing out that many sci-fi authors--like Asmiov, for example, since he was brought up--would classify such stories as being not really sci-fi...because science wasn't the focus, that the premise wasn't about some aspect of science, but rather about a love story; unless the science was integral to the plot, many science fiction authors would classify it as NOT sci-fi. And I take issue with that; I find it quite limiting.
-----signature-----
Introducing new Dark Side RocketGirl™: Quicker, Easier, More Seductive!™
"Duuude, the fat guy totally just blew up!" -Pink Five
"Lectroids? Planet 10? Nuclear extortion? A girl named 'John'?"
"We gotta go to the crappy town where I'M a hero!"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Laszlo
Registered:
Nov '06
|
Date Posted:
1/8 11:27am
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
|
RocketGirl posted:
But by doing that, you make the characters servants of the situation, not the other way around; that's the problem with Hard SF.
Yes but the core of good drama is dealing with situations in a realistic manner and how characters deal with crisis is important. If you don’t know how fire works don’t write about a fire fighter; likewise if you’re going to have a Star Destroyer fall into a black hole for Yoda’s sake do the damn research on what would really happen rather than imagine a giant bathroom drain.
I can admire a character more if they understand a world and can manipulate their surroundings to their advantage much more than someone who survives because of the writer’s whim. It doesn’t just apply to physics… I mean, how can anyone write about a Rebellion without a rudimentary understanding of sociology or politics? ‘Geee, they taxed my rutabaga-grove I’m gonna revolt’.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
RocketGirl
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
1/8 11:59am
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
- Date Edited:
1/8 11:59am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
RocketGirl
|
Laszlo posted:
RocketGirl posted:
But by doing that, you make the characters servants of the situation, not the other way around; that's the problem with Hard SF.
Yes but the core of good drama is dealing with situations in a realistic manner and how characters deal with crisis is important. If you don’t know how fire works don’t write about a fire fighter; likewise if you’re going to have a Star Destroyer fall into a black hole for Yoda’s sake do the damn research on what would really happen rather than imagine a giant bathroom drain.
...why? Why does everything have to be realistic? What's wrong with imagining, with making things up?
This is what I mean when I say that this attitude is horribly limiting; in forcing things to adhere to reality, you limit imagination. Again, I have to point out that science fiction can be about fictional science.
Laszlo posted:
I can admire a character more if they understand a world and can manipulate their surroundings to their advantage much more than someone who survives because of the writer’s whim.
But that's not what we're talking about, here. We're talking about an environment that was bent to the writer's whim, from the beginning.
If I were to write a story about, say, a black hole (as you mentioned earlier), and I were to decide that, in MY fictional universe, black holes had these properties, worked in this way, and looked like that, and stuck to it throughout the story, I say that's a perfectly valid manner of telling a story about a black hole, even if it is contrary to the real-world properties and appearance of a black hole.
It's the insistence that this just simply Isn't Allowed that I'm arguing against.
Laszlo posted:
It doesn’t just apply to physics… I mean, how can anyone write about a Rebellion without a rudimentary understanding of sociology or politics? ‘Geee, they taxed my rutabaga-grove I’m gonna revolt’.
But, again, if you create a society out of whole cloth instead of lifting it from the real world, then just about anything goes. It's this insistence that everything resemble OUR world that I feel has greatly limited fiction since about 1990 or so. Audiences seem less and less willing to accept science fiction on its own terms; they'll accept fantasy--throw actual admitted MAGIC into the works and you're golden--but violate physics or do something political that couldn't happen on Earth and look out! The Realism Police'll come to getcha! 
-----signature-----
Introducing new Dark Side RocketGirl™: Quicker, Easier, More Seductive!™
"Duuude, the fat guy totally just blew up!" -Pink Five
"Lectroids? Planet 10? Nuclear extortion? A girl named 'John'?"
"We gotta go to the crappy town where I'M a hero!"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarkSapiens
Registered:
Oct '05
|
Date Posted:
1/8 12:06pm
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
|
Wow, RocketGirl, you have the ability to argue about any opinion of anybody, even when they agree with you... 
First, let me make a point here. Well, two points, actually:
One: As you may have noticed, I'm not an English speaker, and thinking in Spanish the replies to such a discussion and then try to write them in English with the same meaning can be sometimes very difficult. I'm trying to do my best.
Two: I study Physics. I LIKE Physics. And so I like to think about why things happen, or how they are possible, no matter if they are science or psychology related. That's how science works, and so the mind of a little kid that wants to discover the causes of what surrounds him. It's about asking. And that's my way of thinking. But the great thing is that you can actually imagine the answers, and I can do that pretty well. That's good when you try to make a story. You just have the questions of why a thing happens, or why characters act in that way, and you need to imagine the answers, trying also to make them believable.
So well, if I like to imagine those answers as a mental exercise when watching a film, I have the right to. It's much more cooler than a block attached to a spring that makes it oscillate... And I don't think science used this way is a limitation to the film. I don't know why do you want to LIMIT science to be out of there, even if it's just for fun.
It also seems that you are putting a lot of limitations to Star Wars stories. What if I wanted to tell a story strongly related to technology in Star Wars? Is it forbidden or something? I would write it because I enjoy that part, and because I KNOW there are some folks that would find it interesting, too. If you don't like that kind of stories, then the answer is easy: Just don't read it...
RocketGirl posted:
And my argument is that it's fiction, and you should treat it as such. Demanding slavish adherence to the real world in something that is, by its very nature, MADE UP, seems to me to be to miss the point entirely. Just go with it and have fun, dude.
My point: "They want to make an FX-driven sequence" + "The FX look bad and really odd" = The sequence doesn't work. Just that simple. It wasn't a matter of reality or fiction but a matter of FX well or bad done, which wasn't the point of the conversation, I think. (I assume I have the right to decide whether I like or not the FX sequences in the film, and I don't want to mean that they're a central role in the movie. Just in case. I'm just stating an oppinion)
RocketGirl posted:
But by demanding that real-world science be adhered to, you actually DO limit yourself.
As a writer, you limit your imagination, certainly.
As a filmmaker, you might just limit yourself in terms of excitement and drama; I've seen real-world physics in action in a space battle and, frankly, it's BORING. The atmospheric flight model used by Star Wars ships may be entirely fake, but at least it's EXCITING.
Again, it doesn't limit your imagination. It actually STIMULATES it. You want some things that in normal circumstances would be impossible? Well... you just have to find a way to do it. That could be done by mading up a new technology, a superpower, or whatever. You could try to explain it with science or not. And if you do, that could be just a mental exercise or a part of the writing (for example, in Hard Science Fiction). But again, the limit is your imagination, not science. You can even apply it to made up things to solve certain problem. Do you know that a lot of scientific discoveries or inventions evolved from ideas in sci-fi stories?
And I know you don't like the nBSG, but their space battles are all but boring, and they're ones of the most physically accurate I've ever seen.
RocketGirl posted:
As an audience member, you limit your enjoyment. I've watched far too many movies where I'm totally enjoying it, but some nerd-bag who has appointed himself a physics rules lawyer is having a conniption because they got something "wrong" scientifically. C'mon...it's FICTION; what, are we only allowed to break reality if there's actual MAGIC involved???
Well, as I said, this usually doesn't limit my enjoyment. You can tell the guy to think about how that kind of flying would be possible in space, instead of letting it affect his enjoyment of the film. He could find that way more interesting. 
The "C'mon...it's FICTION" thing has just been answered by Laszlo, and I agree with him.
RocketGirl posted:
But, see, even then, I HATE when that's the POINT of a movie. The best movies are about PEOPLE; A, B, and C are and should be incidental, events that happen or conditions that exist rather than the focus or premise of the movie.
I agreed with you in that point, RG. I didn't say that this should be the point of the movie. If you like movies about people, watch those instead. But what if someone's interested in that other kind of movies? Hasn't he or she a right to enjoy it?
And one thing I wanted to say is that, well... you are criticizing what YOU think sci-fi is:
RocketGirl posted:
and whose writings I've never much cared for...probably because of that limiting notion, come to think of it.
Or perhaps, because you have that prejudice, and didn't want to read those because of your own previous opinion about them. When I said most Sci-fi stories are about society and morals, you said that was a limitation. Let's see:
RocketGirl posted:
I actually sat down and said, "Waitaminit...if I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna do this RIGHT. What has the Saga always meant to me, truly? And how can that be done in a way that isn't just a reshash of what has gone before? What HAVEN'T we seen that really ought to be explored?"
So I realized the answers were: the Rebellion always meant more to me than the Skywalker Family Spat, exploring how the Alliance actually functioned beyond simply engaging in battles would be a non-rehash story to tell, and following a group of Rebels on a covert mission to recruit worlds into the Alliance was something we'd never seen before and really ought to be explored.
So you began to write a story in which we have an Empire which, because of the high level of technology, is able to dominate almost an entire galaxy. But this is an evil empire, so there's a rebellion that fights against it, and tries to get people adhered to its cause.
RocketGirl, THAT's society and morals!! THAT's a sci-fi story! OF COURSE it is character-driven. Most sci-fi stories are, and characters are the center of the action. See, I recently read the Mars Trilogy from Kim Stanley Robinson, which is one of the Hardest Science Fiction stories you can see, and you wouldn't imagine how deep its characters are, how character driven it is. Of course characters and their personal interrelations are the main issue, but that's not a limitation to make a story about science, society, politics, economy, technology, psychology, exploration, religion, and PEOPLE. Yes, in its heart it is a story about people. And its realism is AWESOME. Reality doesn't become a limitation to the story AT ALL. It expands it in an incredible way, and I think whoever has read it will agree with me.
-----signature-----
"Our cruisers can't repel firepower of that magnitude!" "Impressive... Most impressive... Obi-Wan has tought you well." Chase over Endor: http://boards.theforce.net/scifi_3d_forum/b10013/23057645/p1/ Animator in "Star Wars: Threads of Destiny"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
RocketGirl
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
1/8 12:42pm
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
|
DarkSapiens posted:
One: As you may have noticed, I'm not an English speaker, and thinking in Spanish the replies to such a discussion and then try to write them in English with the same meaning can be sometimes very difficult. I'm trying to do my best.
Actually, I HADN'T noticed; I thought you were just one of those people who thinks the internet is a Grammar Free Zone. The 'net is full of those, and your posts are actually much better than most; I had no reason to think English wasn't your first language.
In a weird, back-handed sort of way, that's actually a compliment.
DS posted:
Two: I study Physics. I LIKE Physics. And so I like to think about why things happen, or how they are possible, no matter if they are science or psychology related. That's how science works, and so the mind of a little kid that wants to discover the causes of what surrounds him. It's about asking. And that's my way of thinking. But the great thing is that you can actually imagine the answers, and I can do that pretty well. That's good when you try to make a story. You just have the questions of why a thing happens, or why characters act in that way, and you need to imagine the answers, trying also to make them believable.
Okay, there was a line from a documentary about Star Wars where Mark Hamill was talking about the scene immediately after the trash compactor, and he had turned to George Lucas and said, "Hey, wait a minute! I was just swimming around in garbagey muck...why is my hair dry and perfect?" And Harrison Ford turns to him and says, "It's not that kinda movie, son." (Actually, he might have said, "ain't", but whatever...)
Well, I have exactly the same comment about your second point: with regards to Star Wars, it ain't that kinna movie.
DS posted:
So well, if I like to imagine those answers as a mental exercise when watching a film, I have the right to.
Of COURSE you have a right to...but I think you're cheating yourself out of some otherwise damn fine fiction if you do.
DS posted:
It's much more cooler than a block attached to a spring that makes it oscillate... And I don't think science used this way is a limitation to the film. I don't know why do you want to LIMIT science to be out of there, even if it's just for fun.
But it's quite the opposite: science blocks imagination, no the other way around.
DS posted:
It also seems that you are putting a lot of limitations to Star Wars stories. What if I wanted to tell a story strongly related to technology in Star Wars? Is it forbidden or something?
No, it just misses the point. Star Wars stories tend to feel a certain way and deal with certain aspects of the GFFA; stepping outside that might be fun or interesting, but it ain't gonna feel like Star Wars.
It would also be pointless; most of the Star Wars tech is completely made up. I've seen Star Wars tech manuals in stores and thought about buying them...only to realize that it's completely silly. That's just not what Star Wars is ABOUT.
DS posted:
My point: "They want to make an FX-driven sequence" + "The FX look bad and really odd" = The sequence doesn't work. Just that simple.
That may have been what you were trying to say; it's not the point you actually ended up making.
If the FX just LOOK odd, that's one thing, but it certainly seemed before as if you were saying, "The FX looked fine, but the result was an action or occurance that could not happen in the real world, and therefore I object." Whether it's a violation of gravity or atmospheric flight models in vacuum or some other damn thing that bends physics into a pretzel, that seemed to make you go, "Science Rules violation! Ten minute penalty, and this movie is labeled as 'Sucking Horribly'!"
Maybe that's not what you meant, or maybe that was someone else's argument and I'm confusing the two of you, but that's what I've been arguing against.
DS posted:
Again, it doesn't limit your imagination. It actually STIMULATES it.
Hardly. Being forced to adhere to real world science means that if you imagine something that violates those natural laws and try to put it in your movie, people are going to object to it. That LIMITS the imagination, by definition.
DS posted:
So you began to write a story in which we have an Empire which, because of the high level of technology, is able to dominate almost an entire galaxy.
No. They are able to dominate the galaxy because they are willing to be ruthless and evil, because they are willing to commit atrocities; the fact that they developed a superweapon is all but immaterial, really. The Death Star is ultimately a McGuffin, even though it actually IS used during the course of the movie. Ultimately, the story is not ABOUT technology, it's about PEOPLE, and the things they do to and with each other.
DS posted:
RocketGirl, THAT's society and morals!! THAT's a sci-fi story!
No, it's not! Not by Asimov's definition! Ultimately, this is a war story told in a sci-fi universe, not a sci-fi story about technology.
DS posted:
OF COURSE it is character-driven. Most sci-fi stories are, and characters are the center of the action. See, I recently read the Mars Trilogy from Kim Stanley Robinson, which is one of the Hardest Science Fiction stories you can see, and you wouldn't imagine how deep its characters are, how character driven it is.
It's been my experience that this is rare, especially in more classic sci-fi. I've tried reading authors like Clarke, Asimov, Bradbury, etc...these are people writing ABOUT science; the people are almost incidental. It's kinna like most fan films: the characters are just there to hold the lightsabers.
DS posted:
And its realism is AWESOME.
But my POINT is that realism is not REQUIRED. Some people say it is; those people are WRONG. And it's that attitude which is horribly, horribly limiting to science fiction writing, as well as to other genres.
DS posted:
Reality doesn't become a limitation to the story AT ALL. It expands it in an incredible way, and I think whoever has read it will agree with me.
I think you're missing my point. YES, you can find examples of hard science fiction where the science and technology have been exhaustively researched and made as realistic as possible, and then interwoven with engaging characters...but there and many people who say that that is the ONLY way to write sci-fi, that making up your own scientific rules for your own fictional universe is simple Not Allowed. That you cannot do that and still write something worth reading or watching. And THAT'S the attitude I'm talking about, the attitude that says that real-world science is REQUIRED.
-----signature-----
Introducing new Dark Side RocketGirl™: Quicker, Easier, More Seductive!™
"Duuude, the fat guy totally just blew up!" -Pink Five
"Lectroids? Planet 10? Nuclear extortion? A girl named 'John'?"
"We gotta go to the crappy town where I'M a hero!"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Laszlo
Registered:
Nov '06
|
Date Posted:
1/8 12:45pm
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
|
RocketGirl posted:
Why does everything have to be realistic? What's wrong with imagining, with making things up?
Because if you don't base it on some level of reality you end up with a crisis that gets resolved by the Magical McGuffin Machine (pat pending).
And it isn't limiting dammit, learning something new rather than copying what's out there is what good fiction is about. Coming up with a new solution to an old crisis is cool... coming up with a totally new crisis whose solution reshapes your character's paradigm is genius.RocketGirl posted:
But that's not what we're talking about, here. We're talking about an environment that was bent to the writer's whim, from the beginning.
And you totally miss the point of my argument, yet again. A character that can understand and manipulate his world is cool. A character that shakes his Magical McGuffin Machine to get out of a problem is bad writing. It's insulting, that's why. Unless you're specifically homage-ing some throwback work of fiction, i.e. Diseny's the Black Hole, you're telling the audience you think they'd be too stupid to notice bad science. Sometime you can get away with a magical black box, but if that's the drive of your premise - pun intentional - you're just dicking around in the toybox of giants.RocketGirl posted:
It's the insistence that this just simply Isn't Allowed that I'm arguing against.
It's not a matter of 'this just simply Isn't Allowed' but 'This is Frowned Upon'. It's not like you have to damage your delicate feet on the pavement on your way to the library, you can Wiki this stuff up! The subject is Serious Fan Films, right there, top of the page. Serious stories require serious characters. Which is the most important character?
The World.RocketGirl posted:
Audiences seem less and less willing to accept science fiction on its own terms; they'll accept fantasy--throw actual admitted MAGIC into the works and you're golden--but violate physics or do something political that couldn't happen on Earth and look out!
Yes but even magic has rules and weight and depth, good magic stories at any rate. It's what makes them magical, to contrast with the mundane world the rest of you live in.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
RocketGirl
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
1/8 1:56pm
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
|
Laszlo posted:
RocketGirl posted:
Why does everything have to be realistic? What's wrong with imagining, with making things up?
Because if you don't base it on some level of reality you end up with a crisis that gets resolved by the Magical McGuffin Machine (pat pending).
Not necessarily. It could be something very simple:
Person A: "In my fictional universe, interstellar travel is handled by jumping from one plane of reality to another. That other plane of reality is utterly empty and much smaller than our own universe. Movement within it is proportional to movement in our
own, so moving X distance in that pocket universe is equivalent to moving X times 5,000 in our own; transit back into our universe and you will have moved 5,000 times as far as you did in the pocket universe, and THAT'S how interstellar travel is achieved without time dilation effects."
Person B: "That's a steaming load of hooey that contradicts every known law of physics."
Person A: "Tough. That's my universe and how I designed it; I intend to keep it consistent so it always works the same way. End of story."
That doesn't make this method of travel integral to the plot, it's just a device. It may become significant, it may not. But, ultimately, that's not what the story is about; it's just a device. It may NEVER become critical to the plot, or it might; neither result is required.
Laz posted:
And it isn't limiting dammit, learning something new rather than copying what's out there is what good fiction is about.
That's still limiting. What it says is that the science isn't what's allowed to be fiction. I don't know how many times I can say it, how many times I have to say it before it sinks in, but the name "science fiction" can be "SCIENCE fiction" and "science FICTION"; the science can be the part that is fictional...only if the nay-sayers have their way, it can't be, it isn't ALLOWED to be. That's what I'm objecting to, that's what I say is limiting.
Laz posted:
And you totally miss the point of my argument, yet again. A character that can understand and manipulate his world is cool. A character that shakes his Magical McGuffin Machine to get out of a problem is bad writing.
And you're missing MY point, which is about world-building, not plot-building. Fictional science which bears no resemblance to real science which is employed during the creation of a fictional universe is, in my never-humble opinion, a perfectly valid method of science fiction writing. Hell, without it, we'd had no Star Wars.
This does NOT mean that the science that the writer has essentially pulled out of their nethers will be a McGuffin plot device. Not at all. It may never impact the plot at all...or it might. Or it might in some relatively insignificant way. Or it may well be your much-hated McGuffin. My point is that creating something out of whole cloth that bears no resemblance to the real world, but which is part of the natural world in your physical universe (as opposed to being supernatural), is a perfectly valid form of fictional storytelling.
The nay-sayers would do what they do best: say nay. These are dogmatic slaves to real-world science who would see imagination stifled in favor of the real world, and in being so they are stifling creativity.
Laz posted:
Unless you're specifically homage-ing some throwback work of fiction, i.e. Diseny's the Black Hole, you're telling the audience you think they'd be too stupid to notice bad science.
No, you're not. You're telling the audience, "This is fiction, and it doesn't pretend to be anything else; please kindly check your assumptions, preconceptions, and inhibitions at the door. If you can't handle being told a story that is based on imagination rather than slavish devotion to real-world science, you're going to hate this one."
Laz posted:
Sometime you can get away with a magical black box, but if that's the drive of your premise - pun intentional - you're just dicking around in the toybox of giants.
See, you're talking about a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT kind of phenomenon...the from-out-of-nowhere fictional science, deus ex machina, sudden-and-unprecedented-violation-of-the-world-as-presented bad science.
That's different; I'm talking about the "I purposefully designed my fictional universe to include A, B, and C, which allows this or that to happen. No, A, B, and C don't work like that in the real world, but that's the story I want to tell. Don't worry, any violations of the real world that will become important--indeed, integral--to the plot will have been fully justified beforehand (unless, of course, the discovery of how such an unprecedented violation of the real world was possible is the point of the plot, in which case the violation comes before the explanation). Either way, there will be no sudden-exception type violations of real work science; everything will either be justified or unimportant."
We're completely talking at cross-purposes, here. I'm talking about making up and entire universe, not a single event that makes you go, "Schdenwawa???   "
Laz posted:
It's not a matter of 'this just simply Isn't Allowed' but 'This is Frowned Upon'.
Then it's a matter of "Get the hell over it." 
Laz posted:
It's not like you have to damage your delicate feet on the pavement on your way to the library, you can Wiki this stuff up!
But you don't HAVE to, is my point. If you want, you can CREATE something. You know...IMAGINE? Play a wee game of Pretend? Then write it up and see if it entertains some folks. Demanding that your imagination play within certain specific RULES is a load of steaming crap; if George Lucas had done that, we wouldn't have Star Wars in the first place!
Laz posted:
The subject is Serious Fan Films, right there, top of the page. Serious stories require serious characters. Which is the most important character?
The World.
But there's nothing that says your world can't be serious AND fictional at the same time. There's nothing that DEMANDS that your world be based entirely upon the real one in terms of how the science of it works. Nothing but your own prejudice, your own predisposition. I believe that you're allowed to MAKE UP the world your story is set in, including that science, and that doing so does not negate its solemnity or seriousness.
Laz posted:
Yes but even magic has rules and weight and depth, good magic stories at any rate. It's what makes them magical, to contrast with the mundane world the rest of you live in.
Yes, of course it does, and nobody is saying it can't or shouldn't. MY point is that YOU ARE ALLOWED TO CHANGE THE RULES OF SCIENCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF FICTION. Just so long as you do so consistently throughout the course of your story, as opposed to a single suspension to assist the plot.
-----signature-----
Introducing new Dark Side RocketGirl™: Quicker, Easier, More Seductive!™
"Duuude, the fat guy totally just blew up!" -Pink Five
"Lectroids? Planet 10? Nuclear extortion? A girl named 'John'?"
"We gotta go to the crappy town where I'M a hero!"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarkSapiens
Registered:
Oct '05
|
Date Posted:
1/8 2:29pm
Subject:
RE: What Happen to the Serious Fan Films???
- Date Edited:
1/8 2:46pm (3 edits total)
Edited By:
DarkSapiens
|
RocketGirl posted:
that's actually a compliment.
Thanks for that, then.
RocketGirl posted:
with regards to Star Wars, it ain't that kinna movie.
Where did I say Star Wars? I was exposing my general way of thinking, saying that I like to ask about why something happens, and finding the answers... As I see it, if you don't wonder those things (why did something happen, or why did somebody act like that) and try to explain them to yourself, imagining what could have happened, you enjoy films less than I do, actually...
And I wasn't talking about little bugs like those at all.
RocketGirl posted:
Of COURSE you have a right to...but I think you're cheating yourself out of some otherwise damn fine fiction if you do.
No, I'm not! That's exactly what I'm trying you to understand. It is possible to enjoy that fiction as you say it, AND then have some fun wondering those things. It ADDS to the enjoyment of the film, doesn't make you miss the point of it.
RocketGirl posted:
But it's quite the opposite: science blocks imagination, no the other way around.
Yes, it IS the other way! You have a wrong idea of what science is if you think like that...
DS posted:
It also seems that you are putting a lot of limitations to Star Wars stories. What if I wanted to tell a story strongly related to technology in Star Wars? Is it forbidden or something?
RocketGirl posted:
No, it just misses the point. Star Wars stories tend to feel a certain way and deal with certain aspects of the GFFA; stepping outside that might be fun or interesting, but it ain't gonna feel like Star Wars.
It would also be pointless; most of the Star Wars tech is completely made up. I've seen Star Wars tech manuals in stores and thought about buying them...only to realize that it's completely silly. That's just not what Star Wars is ABOUT.
Well, actually, all those cool techs is PART of the SW universe. And note that I said "related to technology". Perhaps it could be about a military mechanic that joins to the rebellion and he/she has to escape from the Empire. Damn, it could even be one of the Incom engineers and have the design and construction of the X-wing as a background, just as "The Pillars of the Earth" has the building of a Cathedral... But the story would be about people. It could even have a nice StarWars feel if it's done well. Being it strongly related to technology, or the Force, or the Alliance, the Empire, the Imperial Navy or some resistance forces in a sieged planet... doesn't change that. It's just that it's centered on one part of the saga.
DS posted:
Again, it doesn't limit your imagination. It actually STIMULATES it.
RocketGirl posted:
Hardly. Being forced to adhere to real world science means that if you imagine something that violates those natural laws and try to put it in your movie, people are going to object to it. That LIMITS the imagination, by definition.
You just have to made up with a somewhat convincing explanation, just that. There's no limit at all. It's not "that's impossible", it's more of "make that possible". And only imagination can.
DS posted:
So you began to write a story in which we have an Empire which, because of the high level of technology, is able to dominate almost an entire galaxy.
RocketGirl posted:
No. They are able to dominate the galaxy because they are willing to be ruthless and evil, because they are willing to commit atrocities; the fact that they developed a superweapon is all but immaterial, really. The Death Star is ultimately a McGuffin, even though it actually IS used during the course of the movie. Ultimately, the story is not ABOUT technology, it's about PEOPLE, and the things they do to and with each other.
By "high level of technology" I meant hyperdrives and thigs like those. Without that, even keeping a small bunch of star systems is almost impossible. THAT's the technology I was talking about. The one that is granted in Star Wars, but also makes it possible. And it's made up. I was referring to those things in my response above.
RocketGirl posted:
No, it's not! Not by Asimov's definition! Ultimately, this is a war story told in a sci-fi universe, not a sci-fi story about technology.
And what's Asimov's definition? He only says that filmmakers only took the FX elements from science fictions and made movies based only on that, not paying care to the story. He says that Sci-fi isn't only explosions, spaceship battles or monsters. It is much more. So, as I see it, Sci-fi doesn't have to be centered about technology. So your story fits perfectly in the Sci-fi genre. If you think it doesn't, again, you have a wrong idea about sci-fi.
RocketGirl posted:
It's been my experience that this is rare, especially in more classic sci-fi. I've tried reading authors like Clarke, Asimov, Bradbury, etc...these are people writing ABOUT science; the people are almost incidental.
I don't know what novels have you read, then. For example, I'll talk about the Foundation saga. The first book of the original trilogy, "Foundation", was a recopilation of short stories about history and society, centered about that. But they were only small tales, and there was no time in each one to develope the characters deeply. Then, in the other two books in the trilogy, the following books and even the prequels, the story is fully character-driven. If you've read small sci-fi tales, then science could have more importance that the character does, because that kind of stories are made around a scientific idea, and there's no time to develope personalities. You have to read novels. But the same happens in almost all 1940s and 1950s sci-fi novels. That's the time in which modern sci-fi was born, and all those scientific ideas were completely new, so they wrote about them. And I say "modern" because I consider Joules Verne's novels to be somewhat sci-fi, too.
DS posted:
And its realism is AWESOME.
RocketGirl posted:
But my POINT is that realism is not REQUIRED. Some people say it is; those people are WRONG. And it's that attitude which is horribly, horribly limiting to science fiction writing, as well as to other genres.
I didn't mean it was required. I made that statement to show that even such a realism was no limit at all to make an incredible story.
Rocke | |
