Hot-take time: Fantasy is a dull genre

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
Goliath100 said:
Making it easy: Of course you find it boring, you have restricted the genre to "works like Lords of the Rings".
I am talking about the biggest and most important works in the genre. Of course the more obscure stuff is more interesting, it always is. But if you compare the biggest and most important works of Fantasy to other "genre" fiction, there just isn't nearly the same level of variation; not in the worlds or in the kinds of stories told.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
halisme said:
"I am going to make a blanket state about something I am only willing to look at the surface of, and then say I am not willing to put effort in to change my opinions."

Congratulations, you intellectual, you.
So... You can't disprove the point of my OP?
 

Vanilla ISIS

New member
Dec 14, 2015
272
0
0
Fantasy is about exploring your imagination, not just Middle Ages, magic, elves and dwarves.
That's just 1 fantasy setting and not one that I like.

What about superheroes?
That's a sub-genre of fantasy that's in it's prime at the moment.
Other than that - Star Wars, Harry Potter, The Hunger Games/Maze Runner/Divergent etc, Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks/Illumination/etc. animated movies, monster/giant robot movies, the list is endless (I haven't even mentioned video games).
 

MonsterCrit

New member
Feb 17, 2015
594
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
Fantasy, as a genre, is fucking boring as hell (especially western fantasy). 90% of the stories are just immensely banal remakes, riffs, or commentaries on LOTR or Brothers Grimm tales; 9% are decent remakes, riffs, and commentaries on LOTR or Brothers Grimm tales; and the remaining 1% is just LOTR or Brothers Grimm. Try and disprove me, you can't motherfuckers!
The problem is they're all trying to live up rto consumer expectations. and consumer expectations are shaped by their experiences and sadly that means LOTR, Harry Potter, or Grimm. They're also basically just copying Witcher and Dragons Age, maybe Fable if any of them remember it.

Plenty of originality to be found but you can't expect it from the big budget titles and the lower budget titles will always be hit or miss.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
Vanilla ISIS said:
Fantasy is about exploring your imagination, not just Middle Ages, magic, elves and dwarves.
That's just 1 fantasy setting and not one that I like.

What about superheroes?
That's a sub-genre of fantasy that's in it's prime at the moment.
I mean, super heroes is also dull as fuck, no getting around that. Super heroes, as a genre, suffer from the same problems that fantasy does.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
MonsterCrit said:
BreakfastMan said:
Fantasy, as a genre, is fucking boring as hell (especially western fantasy). 90% of the stories are just immensely banal remakes, riffs, or commentaries on LOTR or Brothers Grimm tales; 9% are decent remakes, riffs, and commentaries on LOTR or Brothers Grimm tales; and the remaining 1% is just LOTR or Brothers Grimm. Try and disprove me, you can't motherfuckers!
The problem is they're all trying to live up rto consumer expectations. and consumer expectations are shaped by their experiences and sadly that means LOTR, Harry Potter, or Grimm. They're also basically just copying Witcher and Dragons Age, maybe Fable if any of them remember it.

Plenty of originality to be found but you can't expect it from the big budget titles and the lower budget titles will always be hit or miss.
Fantasy just seems uniquely bland, however. To bring up comparisons from earlier, when was the last time you saw a fantasy horror story hit it big? Sci-fi horror, on the other hand, hits it big all the damn time.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
Vanilla ISIS said:
Fantasy is about exploring your imagination, not just Middle Ages, magic, elves and dwarves.
That's just 1 fantasy setting and not one that I like.

What about superheroes?
That's a sub-genre of fantasy that's in it's prime at the moment.
I mean, super heroes is also dull as fuck, no getting around that. Super heroes, as a genre, suffer from the same problems that fantasy does.
And Science Fiction does not?
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Vanilla ISIS said:
Fantasy is about exploring your imagination, not just Middle Ages, magic, elves and dwarves.
That's just 1 fantasy setting and not one that I like.

What about superheroes?
That's a sub-genre of fantasy that's in it's prime at the moment.
I mean, super heroes is also dull as fuck, no getting around that. Super heroes, as a genre, suffer from the same problems that fantasy does.
And Science Fiction does not?
The problem in sci-fi is not nearly as bad as it is in fantasy, hands down.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Vanilla ISIS said:
Fantasy is about exploring your imagination, not just Middle Ages, magic, elves and dwarves.
That's just 1 fantasy setting and not one that I like.

What about superheroes?
That's a sub-genre of fantasy that's in it's prime at the moment.
I mean, super heroes is also dull as fuck, no getting around that. Super heroes, as a genre, suffer from the same problems that fantasy does.
And Science Fiction does not?
The problem in sci-fi is not nearly as bad as it is in fantasy, hands down.
Bah, there is always "the intellegent/peacful aliens" the "Warlike/Invading Aliens", and the "Primal/Animalistic Aliens"

Robots and Androids.

Spaceships and advanced techonolgy.

Different Planets.

Political intreagues and adventure.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Vanilla ISIS said:
Fantasy is about exploring your imagination, not just Middle Ages, magic, elves and dwarves.
That's just 1 fantasy setting and not one that I like.

What about superheroes?
That's a sub-genre of fantasy that's in it's prime at the moment.
I mean, super heroes is also dull as fuck, no getting around that. Super heroes, as a genre, suffer from the same problems that fantasy does.
And Science Fiction does not?
The problem in sci-fi is not nearly as bad as it is in fantasy, hands down.
Bah, there is always "the intellegent/peacful aliens" the "Warlike/Invading Aliens", and the "Primal/Animalistic Aliens"

Robots and Androids.

Spaceships and advanced techonolgy.

Different Planets.

Political intreagues and adventure.
Just saying, there is a hell of a difference between I, Robot, and Foundation. Between Blade Runner and Alien. Between Annihilation and Mad Max: Fury Road. Between Neuromancer and Ready Player One.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Vanilla ISIS said:
Fantasy is about exploring your imagination, not just Middle Ages, magic, elves and dwarves.
That's just 1 fantasy setting and not one that I like.

What about superheroes?
That's a sub-genre of fantasy that's in it's prime at the moment.
I mean, super heroes is also dull as fuck, no getting around that. Super heroes, as a genre, suffer from the same problems that fantasy does.
And Science Fiction does not?
The problem in sci-fi is not nearly as bad as it is in fantasy, hands down.
Bah, there is always "the intellegent/peacful aliens" the "Warlike/Invading Aliens", and the "Primal/Animalistic Aliens"

Robots and Androids.

Spaceships and advanced techonolgy.

Different Planets.

Political intreagues and adventure.
Just saying, there is a hell of a difference between I, Robot, and Foundation. Between Blade Runner and Alien. Between Annihilation and Mad Max: Fury Road. Between Neuromancer and Ready Player One.
Alien and Blade Runner could have been in the same universe for all I know, we never seen what Earth looks like in the Aliensverse as far as I know. (And both franchise were created by the same guy)

I don't consider Mad Max sci fi at all. Post Apocalyptia is its own animal entirely.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Vanilla ISIS said:
Fantasy is about exploring your imagination, not just Middle Ages, magic, elves and dwarves.
That's just 1 fantasy setting and not one that I like.

What about superheroes?
That's a sub-genre of fantasy that's in it's prime at the moment.
I mean, super heroes is also dull as fuck, no getting around that. Super heroes, as a genre, suffer from the same problems that fantasy does.
And Science Fiction does not?
The problem in sci-fi is not nearly as bad as it is in fantasy, hands down.
Bah, there is always "the intellegent/peacful aliens" the "Warlike/Invading Aliens", and the "Primal/Animalistic Aliens"

Robots and Androids.

Spaceships and advanced techonolgy.

Different Planets.

Political intreagues and adventure.
Just saying, there is a hell of a difference between I, Robot, and Foundation. Between Blade Runner and Alien. Between Annihilation and Mad Max: Fury Road. Between Neuromancer and Ready Player One.
Alien and Blade Runner could have been in the same universe for all I know, we never seen what Earth looks like in the Aliensverse as far as I know. (And both franchise were created by the same guy)
The mood, themes, worlds, and stories of the two films are completely different.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Vanilla ISIS said:
Fantasy is about exploring your imagination, not just Middle Ages, magic, elves and dwarves.
That's just 1 fantasy setting and not one that I like.

What about superheroes?
That's a sub-genre of fantasy that's in it's prime at the moment.
I mean, super heroes is also dull as fuck, no getting around that. Super heroes, as a genre, suffer from the same problems that fantasy does.
And Science Fiction does not?
The problem in sci-fi is not nearly as bad as it is in fantasy, hands down.
Bah, there is always "the intellegent/peacful aliens" the "Warlike/Invading Aliens", and the "Primal/Animalistic Aliens"

Robots and Androids.

Spaceships and advanced techonolgy.

Different Planets.

Political intreagues and adventure.
Just saying, there is a hell of a difference between I, Robot, and Foundation. Between Blade Runner and Alien. Between Annihilation and Mad Max: Fury Road. Between Neuromancer and Ready Player One.
Alien and Blade Runner could have been in the same universe for all I know, we never seen what Earth looks like in the Aliensverse as far as I know. (And both franchise were created by the same guy)
The mood, themes, worlds, and stories of the two films are completely different.
The Moods, Themes, Worlds, and Stoies of Warcraft and Dark Souls are also COMPLETLEY different.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Vanilla ISIS said:
Fantasy is about exploring your imagination, not just Middle Ages, magic, elves and dwarves.
That's just 1 fantasy setting and not one that I like.

What about superheroes?
That's a sub-genre of fantasy that's in it's prime at the moment.
I mean, super heroes is also dull as fuck, no getting around that. Super heroes, as a genre, suffer from the same problems that fantasy does.
And Science Fiction does not?
The problem in sci-fi is not nearly as bad as it is in fantasy, hands down.
Bah, there is always "the intellegent/peacful aliens" the "Warlike/Invading Aliens", and the "Primal/Animalistic Aliens"

Robots and Androids.

Spaceships and advanced techonolgy.

Different Planets.

Political intreagues and adventure.
Just saying, there is a hell of a difference between I, Robot, and Foundation. Between Blade Runner and Alien. Between Annihilation and Mad Max: Fury Road. Between Neuromancer and Ready Player One.
Alien and Blade Runner could have been in the same universe for all I know, we never seen what Earth looks like in the Aliensverse as far as I know. (And both franchise were created by the same guy)
The mood, themes, worlds, and stories of the two films are completely different.
The Moods, Themes, Worlds, and Stoies of Warcraft and Dark Souls are also COMPLETLEY different.
Sure, but Dark Souls is kind of unique in the genre. Alien isn't.
 

09philj

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,874
576
118
BreakfastMan said:
MonsterCrit said:
BreakfastMan said:
Fantasy, as a genre, is fucking boring as hell (especially western fantasy). 90% of the stories are just immensely banal remakes, riffs, or commentaries on LOTR or Brothers Grimm tales; 9% are decent remakes, riffs, and commentaries on LOTR or Brothers Grimm tales; and the remaining 1% is just LOTR or Brothers Grimm. Try and disprove me, you can't motherfuckers!
The problem is they're all trying to live up rto consumer expectations. and consumer expectations are shaped by their experiences and sadly that means LOTR, Harry Potter, or Grimm. They're also basically just copying Witcher and Dragons Age, maybe Fable if any of them remember it.

Plenty of originality to be found but you can't expect it from the big budget titles and the lower budget titles will always be hit or miss.
Fantasy just seems uniquely bland, however. To bring up comparisons from earlier, when was the last time you saw a fantasy horror story hit it big? Sci-fi horror, on the other hand, hits it big all the damn time.
But most horror is fantasy. Fantasy doesn't need to be set in a world other than ours; it merely needs to contain elements which aren't scientifically explicable. Look how many fucking movies about ghosts are coming out at the moment.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
09philj said:
BreakfastMan said:
MonsterCrit said:
BreakfastMan said:
Fantasy, as a genre, is fucking boring as hell (especially western fantasy). 90% of the stories are just immensely banal remakes, riffs, or commentaries on LOTR or Brothers Grimm tales; 9% are decent remakes, riffs, and commentaries on LOTR or Brothers Grimm tales; and the remaining 1% is just LOTR or Brothers Grimm. Try and disprove me, you can't motherfuckers!
The problem is they're all trying to live up rto consumer expectations. and consumer expectations are shaped by their experiences and sadly that means LOTR, Harry Potter, or Grimm. They're also basically just copying Witcher and Dragons Age, maybe Fable if any of them remember it.

Plenty of originality to be found but you can't expect it from the big budget titles and the lower budget titles will always be hit or miss.
Fantasy just seems uniquely bland, however. To bring up comparisons from earlier, when was the last time you saw a fantasy horror story hit it big? Sci-fi horror, on the other hand, hits it big all the damn time.
But most horror is fantasy. Fantasy doesn't need to be set in a world other than ours; it merely needs to contain elements which aren't scientifically explicable. Look how many fucking movies about ghosts are coming out at the moment.
By that measure, any story that isn't straight realism could be considered fantasy. It isn't exactly an incredibly useful definition, nor is it one that is understood by most people, I think. If I were to tell someone "I saw a fantasy film the other day and really liked it", the first image in their head will not be "ghosts". The first image in their head will be more like "dragons, swords, and wizards".
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Hawki said:
There's an entire chapter in the fourth Harry Potter novel dedicated to describing how the Three Unforgivable Curses work. It's one of the most engrossing chapters in the novel, because it recontextualizes a lot of prior material, sets the stage for a lot of further material, and gives us a good sense of how the 'rules' work for the curses, since they're repeatedly used by the antagonists. Part of why it's engaging isn't just because of this though, it's because of the character reactions to them - Neville is terrified of the Cruciatus curse (for reasons we don't learn until much later), Harry surviving Advada Kadavra becomes even more shocking, etc.

You can write these kinds of things well.
You can, as I said. But it rarely works out well.

There's a segment in one of the old EU novels where Luke describes the feeling of holding Anakin's lightsaber for the first time. It's only a paragraph or so, but it adds a lot of depth to the original scene.
And most people who will go into a cinema to watch Star Wars overwhelmingly do not give a shit about the EU stuff.

Just like the people who watch Doctor Who don't read the novellas that were written as if a companion canon to the Classic Who. I read metric fucktons of them and loved them, but at the some time I'm not going to criticize Nu Who and the people who watch it for wanting the show to have new angles and concepts to play with.

I will say UNIT is shittier, but meh.

If that dragged on for pages and pages, sure, but you seem to be advocating that any kind of description or worldbuilding is inherently negative. If I spent four pages on a lightsaber all at once, it would be pretty bad (unless I did a Rowling or Herbert and made it engaging). If the info of that four pages was spread out, then it becomes much more paletable.
No I didn't, I didn't advocate anything of the sort. And I would argue spacing out a technical explanation of how lightsabers work might even be worse than just confined to one chapter.


It wouldn't be shit, but that says more about a film's pacing restrictions than the know-how of a lightsaber.
Which is sophist way of saying it would be shit. The film would not benefit for it, and would be worse for it.


Yes ... do I win?

They also show Jedi at the peak of their power, and makes the lightsaber a viable weapon in its universe.
Don't care, because it looks shit.


The duels don't do as well on the emotive angle mind you, but Last Jedi fixed that.
Um ... no.

Swinging your lightsaber around madly in the hope of hitting something?
I'm sorry, but have you actually seen the prequel movies?

Swinging madly? Check.

No weight behind lightsaber swings? Check.

Ridiculous bullshit?


Oh boy, check.

Ain't just AotC that has problems there, bucko. And that was meant to be the epic battle of Master and Padawan. Pretty anticlimactic and ... utterly stupid.

After all, this was also Kenobi...


Lots of people care. Just because you don't doesn't give you the right to say "fuck anybody" who does.
Correction... 99% percent of people willing to pay money to be entertained at the theatre do not give a flying fuck and will not give a flying fuck no matter how many times you pretend like they ought to.

Just like 99% of people that go see Infinity War will not give a flying fuck about Marvel comics as a whole.

You're doing something wrong then.
As per my stipulation alone ... to bring the scene to conclusion.

You actually have to talk in detail about the environment, why it matters, and so on.

That was my point. Don't pretend otherwise.

Unless you mean "show" as in "visuals," no, they can't. Not if we're doing a 1:1 comparison.
That is precisely what I mean, and there is more than enough evidence of that. Whether in animation or in live action (particularly ones with a high desire to show mobility and unrevisited locations) use comicize storyboards and storyboard editors to actually bring a scene to conclusion.

As was my argument you cut out because, seemingly, you didn't have an answer for it.

Try writing to bring the scene to a satisfactory conclusion.

Not merely vaguely hint at it, or leave it to the reader to try to formulate in their headspace. To actually show the scene coming to a conclusion and make it as detail rich as film allows. And that form of writing is beyond books unless it starts to look as if a meticulous chronological historiographical analysis of events as well as associated discourses on culture, fashion, etc...

Writing alone can't do everything. Which is precisely why whether in live-action or animation, no one relies on just writing to help illustrate how a scene should be handled before they go to actual direction.

They use comicized depictions of scenes. Hand-drawn images of key shots. Extensive crew instructions beneath each one.

Again, name an adaptation of a book that has more worldbuilding than the book it's based on.
Which isn't my argument, and you know it.

Films are still reviewed and held to a standard.
Ditto above.

Yes, and? What does this have to do with worldbuilding?
I don't know ... does visual symbolism and performing artistry not count for anything anymore? They say a picture is eorth a thousand words, but what I've found is a single frame of a movie can more so tell up to 10,000 in stage direction, scene exposition, effects, camera type, reason for being shot like that, use of props, likely transitioning angles, quality of stage costumes, historical time period, obvious inspirations to other works ... need I go on?

The shot depictibg Lord Humungus' gun case and pistol tells a fantastic story and oodles of social commentary, character backstory, and symbolism ... in a span of 4.3 seconds. Every element of it perfectly arranged, perfectly positioned, perfectly wearied by age, carefully dusted with the dirt with his assumed travels and travails, the values to which Lord Humungus lives by, and the ravages of war.

And that is worldbuilding still. This still tells a story on its own and yet makes it brutally honest as to his character, and still yet mysterious.

And that frame alone is probably the best reason why an artist creating an entirely creative film without derivation will end up writing many millions of words alone just trying to bring a 100 minute movie to life.



It seems you're equating worldbuilding with wordpainting. Those are two different concepts.
Which is perhaps why you don't seem to quite grasp why Mad Max 1 is clearly a Dystopian setting... why it is arbitrary to put a hard divider between the two.

When the director says as such, why you missed hints it's set in the future, why you have no appreciation of the vehicles the movie highlights and makes incredibly important. Where those vehicles, wordless on their own, silent save for their enginery, speak volumes of the world these characters live in by their relationship to them... just why do you think it is set at least a decade after its intentional release? Maybe the director wanted to, IDK, show a darker future Australia perhaps?

The details that you missed like Mad Max clearly set in a far enough future from its 1979 theatrical release, Australian car culture at the time, Australian police force composition and resourcing, the 1973 Energy Crisis that was an obvious inspiration for the setting... And all of that is fucking important if you want to analyze the film. And yeah, film can tell such things better than a book because the weight of discovering hintsand characteristics as to when the film is actually set would be lost if the book just told you those details. The imagery of the vehicles and their weight and historical importance would be less meaningful if a book just told you.

Just because you seem to be blind to the relevance, don't mistake it for not writing volumes of the world that Mad Max exists in. The writing of the world of Mad Max. Because a fuckton more words necessary to bring that vision to life were written than the entire LotR trilogy. George Miller writes ridiculously fucking long backstories on all his characters and props he wants to use. Taken collectvely, it is many millions of words. But how well do you think any of that would lend to writing a novel if you just smushed them together and pretended to call it a story?

Then screenwriting, to direction, to storyboards, to costume direction, to weapons depiction, to car detailing directions, to stuntwork, to shot composition, to location choices, to everything that goes into giving the viewer a rich world to be lost in. Books do POV better than film. But they can't do 'panorama shots' and provide the same level of world detail in a manner that makes film a brilliant tool for showing someone the world these characters live in. A shorthand reason for this is film shortcuts the need for personal investment that literature can never provide ...

And hell... this even has political dimensions. Like Soviet and Maoist era communists proclaiming cinema is the highest aspirational art to capture the imaginations and message of the people. Precisely because of the sheer density of information that it can grant to a controlling power that has the reins on the cultural war underpinning the age.

Ever seen how a traditional writer handles film direction? It's called Maximum Overdrive... and anyone with a note of understanding film would know it would be an embarassment, but you still had Stephen King talking it up, saying; "See the movie as I would intend for it to be shown!" It doesn't work out well, suffice it to say.

Turned out he needed a Kubrick after all ... Remember how Stephen King fucking derided and whined like a petulant child how Kubrick 'didn't follow his vision'?

Big slice of humble pie there...

You want to see how a director and creative film producer wants to replicate a novel in storytelling, shot composition, and direction? Hitchcock's Rope.

And it is fucking phenomenal. A tour de force of characterization, presence and psychology. The nominal size of a book chapter is about 5K words. What Rope does in a three act cinematic tradition-transformed into one... is what novelists could only dream of.
 

dscross

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
1,264
8
43
Country
United Kingdom
I really think it depends on the material. Try reading a good one like the Discworld series or the Earthsea series (don't watch the anime because it's a poor representation). I agree the most popular current ones, such as Game of Thrones and Harry Potter, are crap (in my opinion), but there are also some great gems out there if you look beyond the norm.
 

Natemans

New member
Apr 5, 2017
681
0
0
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Samtemdo8 said:
BreakfastMan said:
Hazy992 said:
Berserk is the only good fantasy story, you cannot debate me on this because you know I'm right.

Thank you and good night.
Counterpoint: Discworld exists.
Have you even read Discworld?

I always see it in recomendations, but never been elborated on WHAT Discworld is.
Dude, I have read a shit-ton of Discworld. I haven't read every book in the series, but I have probably read damn near 90% of them.
Elaborate then, what is the setting that is Discworld?
It is a fantasy universe created by british author Terry Pratchet, initially to serve as a parody of bad fantasy but later evolved into its own thing. Most of the stories take place on a flat, disc-shaped world (aka the titular Discworld) that sits atop 4 elephants that sit atop a giant tortoise that flies through space.


FUCK LOGIC, FUCK IT IN THE ASS!!!

Holy shit, that looks like one of the coolest things I've ever seen.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,620
981
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Don't care, because it looks shit.

Claims it looks shit, posts a video that shows it doesn't look shit.

I'm sorry, but have you actually seen the prequel movies?
Many times.

Swinging madly? Check.
Not in the same style as TFA, where Rey is swinging it all around. The prequels have a lot of swinging, but there's a sense of style and form to them.

No weight behind lightsaber swings? Check.
A lightsaber is an energy-based weapon. There's no weight to it except from the activator. Fighting as if there is weight behind is nonsense, at least from the perspective of physics.

Correction... 99% percent of people willing to pay money to be entertained at the theatre do not give a flying fuck and will not give a flying fuck no matter how many times you pretend like they ought to.

Just like 99% of people that go see Infinity War will not give a flying fuck about Marvel comics as a whole.
That's different, Marvel has many continuities that exist in isolation from each other. Star Wars is a single continuity - two at most if you divide between Legends and the new canon. There's far more cross-pollination within Star Wars than Marvel, in part driven by comics being a more niche medium than films or books.

You actually have to talk in detail about the environment, why it matters, and so on.

That was my point. Don't pretend otherwise.
You're all over the place, I can't "pretend otherwise" when the points you make keep changing.

That is precisely what I mean, and there is more than enough evidence of that. Whether in animation or in live action (particularly ones with a high desire to show mobility and unrevisited locations) use comicize storyboards and storyboard editors to actually bring a scene to conclusion.
Yes, and? What does this have to do with worldbuilding?

Again, are we discussing worldbuilding or wordpainting? Because again, those are two different concepts. You can convey elements of a world through the visuals, but they'll never give the same level of detail as a novel.

As was my argument you cut out because, seemingly, you didn't have an answer for it.
No, because you've shifted your argument so much, and shifted the realm of the argument - I'm not even sure what you're arguing at this point. That storyboards are used in live action and animation to help establish the scene? Um, yes? Don't know what that has to do with the premise of worldbuilding.

Which isn't my argument, and you know it.
You've shifted the entire argument entirely at this point - I don't even know what you're getting at because you're all over the place.

I don't know ... does visual symbolism and performing artistry not count for anything anymore?
Course it does. How is this related specifically to worldbuilding? Wordpainting has applications beyond just worldbuilding.

They say a picture is eorth a thousand words, but what I've found is a single frame of a movie can more so tell up to 10,000 in stage direction, scene exposition, effects, camera type, reason for being shot like that, use of props, likely transitioning angles, quality of stage costumes, historical time period, obvious inspirations to other works ... need I go on?
Again, wordpainting.

I give up. Either intentionally or not, you've abandoned the original discussion about worldbuilding in favour of wordpainting. Or rather, using visual medium as a way of conveying a story.

The shot depictibg Lord Humungus' gun case and pistol tells a fantastic story and oodles of social commentary, character backstory, and symbolism ... in a span of 4.3 seconds.
I thought this was about Mad Max, not Mad Max 2?

Anyway, I've only seen the first film, so, sure.

When the director says as such, why you missed hints it's set in the future, why you have no appreciation of the vehicles the movie highlights and makes incredibly important. Where those vehicles, wordless on their own, silent save for their enginery, speak volumes of the world these characters live in by their relationship to them... just why do you think it is set at least a decade after its intentional release? Maybe the director wanted to, IDK, show a darker future Australia perhaps?
Well bear in mind I wasn't even alive in the 70s, so I can't comment about vehicle designs, as has well been established. But again, characters being attracted to vehicles is by no means confined to post-apocalyptic settings. I mean, I hate to bring this up, but Fast and the Furious anyone? At the least, it's established that these guys really love their cars (I think, only saw FatF 1 & 3).

As for the idea of a "darker future," maybe, but I find that "a few years from now" tends to be a weasel phrase for artistic liberties. Is the existence of the MPF a statement on the state of the police force, or because Miller wanted it to be "kewl," and give him more freedom in the script.

The details that you missed like Mad Max clearly set in a far enough future from its 1979 theatrical release, Australian car culture at the time, Australian police force composition and resourcing, the 1973 Energy Crisis that was an obvious inspiration for the setting... And all of that is fucking important if you want to analyze the film.
Weren't you the one who stated earlier that EU stuff doesn't matter? Seems ancillary stuff matters here.

Fine, I get it, historical context is important, but there's plenty of works that you can read/watch without historical context and get the full experience. I can read 1984 and get its full impact without being aware of the Cold War. I can watch 2001: A Space Odyssey, and get its themes without being asinine about the fact that it's well past 2001 and we're still nowhere near sending a manned mission to Jupiter. I can watch Blade Runner and be engrossed in its world, without being aware of the 'Japan fear' that was going on at the time, of Japan surpassing the US's economy (hence the proliferation of Japanese/Asian elements in the film). Mad Max however, doesn't really really stand the test of time as well. Not if 'getting' the film requires having in-depth knowledge of car makes. And while I was aware of the oil crisis historically, that barely even factors into the film bar inference that has no direct relevance to the plot, and if anything, is contradicted by it (as no-one is shown having issues with accessing oil).

And yeah, film can tell such things better than a book because the weight of discovering hintsand characteristics as to when the film is actually set would be lost if the book just told you those details. The imagery of the vehicles and their weight and historical importance would be less meaningful if a book just told you.
Sorry, disagree. A book would be able to explain the world in far more detail. You lose out on the visuals, but you'd get a far more solid sense of time, place, and context.

Just because you seem to be blind to the relevance, don't mistake it for not writing volumes of the world that Mad Max exists in. The writing of the world of Mad Max. Because a fuckton more words necessary to bring that vision to life were written than the entire LotR trilogy. George Miller writes ridiculously fucking long backstories on all his characters and props he wants to use. Taken collectvely, it is many millions of words. But how well do you think any of that would lend to writing a novel if you just smushed them together and pretended to call it a story?
I'm aware that Miller does that. You know who else does that? Practically anyone who engages in creative writing, especially if they're writing for a constructed world. You could easily have novels that use the information and still not use all of it, presenting it as a cohesive whole.

Again, if you wanted to actually explore and explain the world of Mad Max (or any other fictional setting), novels will always give you more detail than film.

Then screenwriting, to direction, to storyboards, to costume direction, to weapons depiction, to car detailing directions, to stuntwork, to shot composition, to location choices, to everything that goes into giving the viewer a rich world to be lost in. Books do POV better than film. But they can't do 'panorama shots' and provide the same level of world detail in a manner that makes film a brilliant tool for showing someone the world these characters live in. A shorthand reason for this is film shortcuts the need for personal investment that literature can never provide ...
Which says far more about storytelling than worldbuilding.

Ever seen how a traditional writer handles film direction? It's called Maximum Overdrive... and anyone with a note of understanding film would know it would be an embarassment, but you still had Stephen King talking it up, saying; "See the movie as I would intend for it to be shown!" It doesn't work out well, suffice it to say.
The point you're making is that a writer with little, if any film experience...makes a bad film...

What does this have to do with anything? Maximum Overdrive, far as I'm aware, doesn't really engage in any premise beyond "vehicles come to life and want to kill people." The argument is (or was) about worldbuilding.

Turned out he needed a Kubrick after all ... Remember how Stephen King fucking derided and whined like a petulant child how Kubrick 'didn't follow his vision'?

Big slice of humble pie there...
Gee, imagine that, a writer being miffed that the director took liberties with his novel, including completely changing the persona of Jack...

Also, I don't know why you're bringing The Shining into this, as it isn't a constructed world, and isn't even in the same genre as Mad Max (post-apocalyptic sci-fi vs. paranormal horror). The Shining book vs. film vs. King!film debate is something else entirely.