Hot-take time: Fantasy is a dull genre

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Hawki said:
Claims it looks shit, posts a video that shows it doesn't look shit.
Okay, please articulate how baton twirling is somehow better than this...


Because this actually looks like they're swinging weapons. Not at a rave party juggling large glowsticks.

Also, ignoring the anticlimactic bullshit of 'high ground' are we?

Class.

Many times.
Then you'll have no poroblem formulating a sentence rather than saying; "no, u."

Not in the same style as TFA, where Rey is swinging it all around.
I'm sorry, but it's a new fucking weapon. She hadn't seen a lightsaber until about a day ago in the movie. Hell, at least Luke manages to get some droid practice in the Falcon

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.
Right ....


Each blow looks like it actually has weight to it. Luke beats down his dad with pure anger and the strength of his blows, bringing him to the ground. He ends the fight by bashing him down repeatedly, smashing aside his lightsaber, and cutting off his hand.

And it looks amazing. Like an actual fight with swords (or at least a theatrical fight with swords). All without the dancing.

TFA seems to channel that better than any of the prequel fights. Where the lightsabers actually seem to have weight, and are capable of dashing aside another lightsaber. Being able to overpower someone with your blade strike.

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.
And this invalidates the argument because ....?

Please tell me why the average person who goes to watch a Star Wars film would be interested in some drawl about lightsaber fighting techniques?

I think you'll find they paid to see people fighting with them, not being fucking bored.

You're all over the place, I can't "pretend otherwise" when the points you make keep changing.
Bullshit, I literally use those words; "bring the scene to a satisfactory conclusion..." in my original argument. Try again.

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.
No, you claim they're two different things. I said that was arbitrary nonsense. Showed examples of why it was arbitrary nonsense. So far you haven't actually backed up any of your points with actual proof.

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.
Where did I shift my argument?

Point to me where.

Course it does. How is this related specifically to worldbuilding? Wordpainting has applications beyond just worldbuilding.
So you claim. Prove it. Because so far you haven't even bothered to address the examples I've given.

I thought this was about Mad Max, not Mad Max 2?

Anyway, I've only seen the first film, so, sure.
Because it goes to my argument that that sort of symbolism and worldbuilding is far harder in a book than a visual medium. That a visual frame can be worth thousands of words in a novel, and yet shown for only a handful of seconds in a far longer movie.

And yes, it is worldbuilding when taken into the context of everything else.

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).
So? I wasn't alive when the first Star Wars movie came out .. and yet I'm talking about that as well.

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).
Relevance? And clearly the MFP have no problems getting fuel. After all, the MFP are a Highway patrol unit protecting transcontinental highways.

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.
Sorry, disagree. A book would be plainly boring if it attempted to display a tenth of the world detail as a movie.

You know these aren't actually arguments?

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.
And?


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.
How?

Which says far more about storytelling than worldbuilding.
Worldbuilding is very much a part of storytelling.

The point you're making is that a writer with little, if any film experience...makes a bad film...
But it was more than a bad film. It was an egotistical film. King was so sure of his vision even post-production, and it turned out to be one of the most embarassing films of all time. First year film students would have done better with the budget he had.

And speaking of someone with zero real film experience ...

Have you heard of George Miller's Mad Max?

Gee, imagine that, a writer being miffed that the director took liberties with his novel, including completely changing the persona of Jack...
That's because King didn't actually understand why his vision of the perfect adaptation wouldn't have worked. And he proved he had no fucking idea 5 years later.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,487
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Hawki said:
Claims it looks shit, posts a video that shows it doesn't look shit.
Okay, please articulate how baton twirling is somehow better than this...
Because it looks like the people swinging the lightsabers know what they're doing. Not swinging it around with no rhyme or reason, where the person who's swinging it around with no rhyme or reason WINS.

Last Jedi even calls out Kylo out on it.

Also, ignoring the anticlimactic bullshit of 'high ground' are we?
That's the climax, not anticlimax.

While you can call out that the high ground is moot in the framework of the actual battle, the point of it is that even now, Obi-Wan is trying to get Anakin to stand down, and Anakin, consumed with both rage and overconfidence, tries to flip over him. It brings the fight to a close, and says a lot about both their characters in a short amount of time.

Then you'll have no poroblem formulating a sentence rather than saying; "no, u."
What?

And it's spelt "problem."

I'm sorry, but it's a new fucking weapon. She hadn't seen a lightsaber until about a day ago in the movie. Hell, at least Luke manages to get some droid practice in the Falcon
Yes, and? She's had no experience in using the lightsaber, and bests someone who's been training with it for years.

You can point out that Kylo has been wounded, and potentially emotionally torn up (confirmation that only comes in the sequel film), but when people call Rey a Mary Sue, they point to this scene for a reason.


Each blow looks like it actually has weight to it. In fact Luke beats down his dad with pure anger and the strength of his blows, bringing him to the ground.
And it makes no sense in the context of the lore, what's your point?

It's a great scene, sure, but nonsense from a physics standpoint. A laser has no mass. You can't 'hit' someone with a laser.

And this invalidates the argument because ....?
Because you're using false equivalency to make an argument. There's a world of difference between the comic-movie divide in Marvel, and the Star Wars fanbase.

Not everyone who watches a Star Wars film is going to be up to snuff on the EU, but the difference is that the EU is congruent with the Star Wars films, while Marvel comics aren't congruent with their films.

Please tell me why the average person who goes to watch a Star Wars film would be interesting in some drawl about lightsaber fighting techniques?
Which is nothing to do with my argument and you know it.

You're all over the place, I can't "pretend otherwise" when the points you make keep changing.
Bullshit, I literally use those words; "bring the scene to a satisfactory conclusion..." in my original argument.[/quote]

Your original argument that's changed. This started out about worldbuilding. You then shifted the argument to converting a visual scene to written format.

No, you claim they're two different things. I said that was arbitrary nonsense.

So far you haven't actually backed up any of your points with actual proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldbuilding

https://www.amazon.com/Word-Painting-Guide-Writing-Descriptively/dp/1582970254

But seriously, this is like asking someone to prove that a word is a verb/noun/adjective/whatever.

Where did I shift my argument?

Point to me where.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1055142-Hot-take-time-Fantasy-is-a-dull-genre?page=2#24238107 (Where you're talking about worldbuilding)

Effectively the 'near-now' style of worldbuilding, where no distinct dates are given, but proof it's sometime in the near future. Which is why it has somewhat of a (Australian) conservative bent to it. Given in the 60s and 70s Australian sociologists, in conjuncture with (racist) dialogues about the nature of Aboriginal communities, assumed a posture and rhetoric of 'cultural collapse'. One of the big excuses arguments for enculturating Aboriginal children in Anglo-Australian households.

Basically Miller grew up with this rhetoric, applied it to the endemic levels of drunken violence he saw in Australian youth as a doctor treating trauma patients, combined it with the psychologically traumatic events of his near childhood where he was a lucky survivor in a car accident where his friends died, that was (likely) caused by speeding and alcohol, and decided to make a movie about it.

So he took real life stories of the worst accidents, hooliganism, street racing, drunken violence he could, and threw it into a 'cultural collapse' narrative ... but pointing the finger at Australian youth in general. The massive (relatively) budget fundings of Australian cultural and artistic programs the government threw money into was also born from this idea that the future stability of nations were determined by its 'civilizing attributes'. Which included artistry and pro-social media forms that either depicted the horror of 'losing cultural milestones' that would result in anti-social behaviour.

Hence why you have the great 'Ozploitation' era of film making. A metric fuckton of Australian government money. It's also the basis underlying films of cult classics like Wake in Fright (AKA as Outback) ... whereby we tear the fucking shit out of the people living in the 'uncultured' interior. Probably the best example of 'surrealist horror' you'll ever see, and if you watch that you'll realize these were real fears people had.

Despite all of that, the first Mad Max is still certainly a dystopian film set in a future where societal collapse has already happened...


http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1055142-Hot-take-time-Fantasy-is-a-dull-genre?page=2#24238291 (where you shift to the likes of cinematography)

No ... it literally can't. What books do really well is the ability to tailor POV. But it can never 'panorama' better than film. Actually sit down and try to write out a scene of your favourite action movie from simply 3rd Person. As simple as it gets. I'll be waiting 2 weeks for you to get it done to the same quality as scriptwriters and the means of following the scene to conclusion. Yet it will take only a minute of your time to show that on the big screen.

Try encapsulating the scene in Saving Private Ryan and the first minute prior the beach landing. Or how about this scene from A Bridge Too Far ....


That's more or less the cutoff point, when you go from talking about the worldbuilding of Mad Max to framing scenes in WWII movies.

So you claim. Prove it. Because so far you haven't even bothered to address the examples I've given.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-is-world-building

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/word-painting

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/word-painting

So? I wasn't alive when the first Star Wars movie came out .. and yet I'm talking about that as well.
Star Wars isn't even set in our galaxy - there's no comparison to be made in that area in regards to historical context.

Relevance? And clearly the MFP have no problems getting fuel. After all, the MFP are a Highway patrol unit protecting transcontinental highways.
Relevance being that Mad Max requires specific knowledge of the context to 'get' the film while other films don't.

And, yes, the MFP have no trouble getting fuel. In fact, no-one has trouble. I've made that point already. It's a world that's supposedly experiencing an oil shortage, but there's no evidence of this, and if anything, plenty of counter-evidence.

Sorry, disagree. A book would be plainly boring if it attempted to display a tenth of the world detail as a movie.
Except that's clearly wrong - again, NO MOVIE HAS EVER PROVIDED MORE DETAIL ON ITS SETTING THAN THE BOOK IT WAS BASED ON.

Also, Dune. The film doesn't describe the setting nearly as well as the book. And it's a lacklustre film regardless, whereas the book does go into worldbuilding, and is engaging in large part because of it.

You know these aren't actually arguments?
You're making opposing arguments in the same manner.

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.
And?[/quote]

And it's therefore irrelevant. It's like saying "John Doe is a great fantasy author because he builds up his world in his head." The same could be said of any author who writes fantasy (or at least writes fantasy well).

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.
How?

Which says far more about storytelling than worldbuilding.
Worldbuilding is very much a part of storytelling.
It is, but if it's a facet of storytelling. You can tell a story without engaging in worldbuilding, and it's easy to critique worldbuilding in isolation from the narrative/themes/characters.
 

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,056
0
0
Samtemdo8 said:
Smithnikov said:
Samtemdo8 said:
Also Warhammer Fantasy > Warhammer 40,000.
Damn STRAIGHT.
Fire, Faith, and Steel.

Sigmar > God Emperor of Mankind, Tomb Kings > Necrons, High Elves > Eldar.
More of an Ar-Ulric man here, but Sigmar was cool by him, so it's all good.
Though to be fair, I still wish for my Dream 40k game to happen, basically a big AAA game with more or less the gameplay of Advanaced Wars on bigger scale:
Have you heard of the Ultimate Apocalypse mod for Dawn of War: Soulstorm? It's basically a next-gen Dawn of War on steroids. It adds literally dozens of units, buildings, maps, entire new factions (like Daemons, Inquisition and Tyranids), new gameplay mechanics, blows the scale up like 20-fold and allows you to field hundreds upon hundreds of combatants. It's basically the definitive WH40k game.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,487
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Oh, fun fact, I actually looked up the weight of a lightsaber.

According to a Legends source it's...wait for it...

1kg.

(Guess I was wrong, lightsabers aren't weightless...sue me.)
 

dscross

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
1,264
8
43
Country
United Kingdom
MrCalavera said:
I'm probably not someone who's to talk about the genre as a whole, cause out of a "classic" fantasy, i've read: LotR, Hobbit, Witcher series, one book by Ursula LeGuin, first couple of chapters of GoT, bunch of Discworld novels... and that's about it. And the last one is more of a spoof on the genre.

I've found myself more of a sci-fi guy when it comes to literature. And one of the reasons is that, indeed, tolkienesque fantasy doesn't seem appealing anymore. I mean, why would i repeat myself with imitations, if i already read the original?
Lol. That's quite a lot of fantasy really mate. You've read most of the most popular authors, except Lewis Caroll and JK Rowling. Which Discworld novels and Earthsea book did you read?
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Hawki said:
Because it looks like the people swinging the lightsabers know what they're doing. Not swinging it around with no rhyme or reason, where the person who's swinging it around with no rhyme or reason WINS.
What ... as opposed to; "I have the high ground!..." Get real.

Last Jedi even calls out Kylo out on it.
And? To put it plainly, who exactly does Kylo Ren fight with his lightsaber? More to the point, who exactly does Rey fight with a lightsaber but Kylo?

But in the world of the prequels.... Anakin has legitimately had decades of training, has fought numerous opponents with lightsabers and lightsaber blocking droids. The thing is ... the fights look fake. It drops the brutality and rawness of combat in favour of circus theatrics. Where the original trilogy actually had a sword master plan the lightsaber choreography, the prequel trilogy got a circus performer.

Which is why all of them never look as good as that one scene in RotJ.

TFA seemed to channel some of the 'weightyness' of the originals while adding in their own flair ... and frankly I'll take it over the acrobatics of the prequels if it means lightsaber fights with some nitty gritty to them.

That's the climax, not anticlimax.
It was anticlimactic ... and directly bullshitted by Kenobi himself with Darth Maul. Anakin could have just hopped onto the ground. Hopped elsewhere.

The reason why it is so fucking disappointing compared to Luke in RotJ is precisely because it lacks sincerity.

What?

And it's spelt "problem."
No, it's spelt evasion

Yes, and? She's had no experience in using the lightsaber, and bests someone who's been training with it for years.
Because she takes him by surprise!

He gives her an opening, and the funny thing is ... he could have beaten her if he had used his anger. She pulled a Luke out, taps into her anger, taps into her malice, and when Kylo is least expecting it turns the tables on him. That was the whole fucking point of the scene. It portrayed a sliver of darkness in Rey that even Kylo didn't expect, and she taps into that anger to beat him.

It was clever dual message that the time Kylo attempts to reach out to another person that they give in to their anger and beat them down. It helps highlight the battle that Kylo has within himself as well as show that Rey isn't perfect.


I don't think I should have to spell it out.

If you have a problem with the delivery, fine. But the meaning is fucking obvious.

You can point out that Kylo has been wounded, and potentially emotionally torn up (confirmation that only comes in the sequel film), but when people call Rey a Mary Sue, they point to this scene for a reason.
Uh huh. You're one of those people, are you?

Sorry, but I actually like the fact that a lightsaber is just a weapon, and that training doesn't make you invincible. I would rather actually see a fun fight scene that doesn't look like dancing, than be bored for the sake of lore. And given the way that Rey has grown up, I'm willing to bet she's done more fighting than Ren has.

She lives on a world where a quarterstaff is considered a viable weapon. And it's illustrated even before the movie really starts that she knows how to defend herself, and likely because the School of Hard Knocks came a'knocking pretty fucking hard. Just like I reckon a Filipino who grew up in the slums of Manila, despite lacking formal training, might actually surprise a martial artist with a hidden knife in their hand ... bleeding out after they deliver two or three quick jabs between the ribs.

Because, you know ... we see it in real life. Training doesn't make you invincible, and being overconfident gets you killed.

Or in the case of Vader, gets his hand cut off from an angry Luke. Or in the case of Kylo Ren a chewing out by Snoke and getting nasty laser burns. And I for one think it fits with his character portrayal of someone wanting to be strong like Vader, wanting to kill the conflict inside him, but failing to actually take the steps Vader did despite trying so very hard to kill the "goodness" within him.

And it seems pretty fitting for Star Wars.

And it makes no sense in the context of the lore, what's your point?

It's a great scene, sure, but nonsense from a physics standpoint. A laser has no mass. You can't 'hit' someone with a laser.
Wow ... it's almost as if it's science-fantasy with space monks and laser blasters.

And?

So, what? You concede the argument? That lightsabers having weight to them when swung, able to knock someone down with powerful strikes, is in the spirit of Star Wars? That fights where these lightsabers have the quality to overpower through strength and momentum make these fights look amazing?

Because, frankly, if your only gripe is nit picky physics nonsense ... maybe Star Wars aren't the movies you should be watching.

It's almost as if TFA took some of its inspiration from RotJ, and that's fine by me because the lightsaber usage looks better. I will say that I personally don't care for lightsabers as I'm more into the ships and blasters, but if you're going to have lightsabers ... I'd rather RotJ-style fights than prequel circus acrobatics.

Because you're using false equivalency to make an argument. There's a world of difference between the comic-movie divide in Marvel, and the Star Wars fanbase.

Not everyone who watches a Star Wars film is going to be up to snuff on the EU, but the difference is that the EU is congruent with the Star Wars films, while Marvel comics aren't congruent with their films.
I wouldn't know, I don't read any of the EU stuff. It's almost as if my argument was predicated on the idea of someone like me (heaven forbid) might actually like to watch a Star Wars movie without having to pretend like the EU stuff exists. That, maybe ... just maybe ... the average person that goes to a Star Wars movie is someone like me and they'd rather be entertained than have pointless lore screamed at them that actively gets in the way of the storytelling.

And FYI, that's not "false equivalency" ... it's almost as if an empirical fact of exploring my opinions and personal experience, and the conclusions one can draw to it are still valid.

Just like someone (like me) might want to conveniently not have to worry about the EU stuff, so might someone (like me) going to see Infinity War might want to conveniently not have to worry about Marvel comics stuff. And just looking at sales data, I'm well and truly in the majority.

It's merely you pretending like that wasn't my argument. Or if you weren't doing it on purpose ... well, I hope I've explained it by now and I apologize for the confusion..

Which is nothing to do with my argument and you know it.
Then what is?

Because you seemed to have taken exception to my...

Correction, 99% of people don't give a flying fuck... yadda yadda yadda?

Your original argument that's changed. This started out about worldbuilding. You then shifted the argument to converting a visual scene to written format.
No I didn't, I was making an argument about the difference between POV and what I called "panorama" shots. The idea of capturing the world and displaying it without contention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldbuilding

https://www.amazon.com/Word-Painting-Guide-Writing-Descriptively/dp/1582970254

But seriously, this is like asking someone to prove that a word is a verb/noun/adjective/whatever.
No, it's not ... I want you to give me an example. If it's so easy, give me an example.

I did so. And yes, I still think it's arbitrary to put hard dividers between worldbuilding and worldpainting. Particularly when it comes to film given you could make that critique of any visual media.

Just like I could say that in a comic, the artist's use of colour helps to convey mood and theme which helps set the tone and allow for easier creation and adoption of the world they have created in the reader's mind.

If they go for a more impressionistic style, it's not just worldpainting, it's about building a stage. And that it crucial to worldbuilding. Give me an example otherwise. It's intellectually bankrupt to pretend like someone is wrong despite providing proofs of concept, but not actually challenge their argument when they put it forward.

Lord Humungus' gun case is not just 'worldpainting', it constructs a mysterious tale that is at the heart of their existence in the Wasteland and what lead them there. That it is a crucial part of telling a story in the Wasteland.

Ditto Max's Pursuit Special.

That's more or less the cutoff point, when you go from talking about the worldbuilding of Mad Max to framing scenes in WWII movies.
Because we were having two separate arguments. If you'd rather just have one, pick and choose.



https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-is-world-building

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/word-painting

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/word-painting
All of which is irrelevant.

Seriously, how the fuck does this actually challenge what I said? How exactly do you have worldbuilding without worldpainting? Moreover how exactly does it challenge my argument that you can't put hard dividers between worldbuilding and worldpainting? If anything, these non-arguments you're putting up validate what I'm saying.

How exactrly is Max's Pursuit Special, and the story behind it as the last of the V8 Interceptors, not worldbuilding? How is the illusive details that Mad Max is set a decade in the future not worldbuilding? How is Lord Humungus' gun case not worldbuilding? How would describing any of this stuff in a novel not be worldbuilding? How would describing any of this stuff also not be worldpainting?

Answer me those, because you're the only one arguing against any of these as part of worldbuilding.

Star Wars isn't even set in our galaxy - there's no comparison to be made in that area in regards to historical context.
Not true. Star War personal weapons were inspired by late WW2 firearms. The storyline itself inspired by a Japanese movie...

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/star-wars-george-lucas-strangest-inspirations

Also ... Neither is Mad Max. It's set in a hypothetical future where the Energy Crisis continues.

Relevance being that Mad Max requires specific knowledge of the context to 'get' the film while other films don't.
Right, but putting yourself in the shoes of an Australian at the time of its release, you'd probably get why the movie is dystopian ... but also the relevance of the cars, the relevance of the fuel shortages and bikies trying to steal fuel, and so on.

Your argument doesn't make the film not dystopian. Because clearly it is.

And, yes, the MFP have no trouble getting fuel. In fact, no-one has trouble. I've made that point already. It's a world that's supposedly experiencing an oil shortage, but there's no evidence of this, and if anything, plenty of counter-evidence.
Well, despite using direct visuals of bikers stealing fuel? A common enough motif of thieves during the 1973 Energy Crisis, you mean?

Also, what plenty of evidence? There's vehicles that have busted down on the roads. Travellers are scarce, but the road death toll is massive for a small stretch of highway. Most of the threats ride motorcycles rather than cars...

People still drove vehicles during the 1973 Energy Crisis.

In the lore of Mad Max, Saudi Arabia and Iran have a fight predominantly. But there are other oilfields around the world. It's just that prices have likely skyrocketed, and thus thievery of petrol and other products of crude oil are also spiking.

To put it bluntly, people are stealing something like fuel for a reason despite the dangers and despite conceivably more important things they could steal and loot if petrol wasn't so dear as it was during the Energy Crisis of 1973.

Except that's clearly wrong - again, NO MOVIE HAS EVER PROVIDED MORE DETAIL ON ITS SETTING THAN THE BOOK IT WAS BASED ON.
???

I disagree. Frankly I think you couldn't tell a Mad Max movie in novel form.

For starters it's a false metric. How do we weigh this?

Yes, books can be as virtually long as they wish to be. But quite clearly it cannot offer the same hypothetical density of information.

For the same reason my reports look better and more comprehensively understood with visual representations of data as a shortcut to just typing the 500+ different data points and forcing the reader to visualize them themselves. Dare I say it would be an awful report that purposefully obfuscates understanding.

Dare I say, but novels can't do visual symbolism very well at all. Which means there is an evocative barrier right there

You're making opposing arguments in the same manner.
Despite the fact that seemingly I'm the only one providing examples of my argument?

And it's therefore irrelevant. It's like saying "John Doe is a great fantasy author because he builds up his world in his head." The same could be said of any author who writes fantasy (or at least writes fantasy well).
Not it's not, but I feel like this is a moot point regardless. More over this tangent itself is irrelvant.

Because the Mad Max franchise is clearly built for film. Handcrafted for the cinema experience. And aso much of it is pegged in ways that would take too long, or lose all pacing, trying to replicate them in a novel.

It works really well as a comic, however. As I have recently had the pleasure to experience. But that's also a pacing issue. The visual stylizations of the story help give it the immediacy the narrative deserves given it places far more faith in evocative visuals than dialogue.

It is, but if it's a facet of storytelling. You can tell a story without engaging in worldbuilding, and it's easy to critique worldbuilding in isolation from the narrative/themes/characters.
But what exactly has this got to do about my argument that it's arbitrary to put a hard divider between worldbuilding and worldpainting?
 

Ogoid

New member
Nov 5, 2009
405
0
0
Alright, so it honestly baffles me that it took this long for me to remember this one, what with my rating it only after The Unconsoled, in my opinion the author's masterpiece and one of the best damn books I've ever read, but



this right here.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,487
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
What ... as opposed to; "I have the high ground!..." Get real.
Out of the two, Rey's is still more absurd.

And? To put it plainly, who exactly does Kylo Ren fight with his lightsaber? More to the point, who exactly does Rey fight with a lightsaber but Kylo?
Not sure what you're getting at here.

But in the world of the prequels.... Anakin has legitimately had decades of training, has fought numerous opponents with lightsabers and lightsaber blocking droids. The thing is ... the fights look fake.
Disagree. I think it looks like an individual would fight, in the knowledge that:

a) The Force allows them to do physical things others couldn't.

b) They exist in a world where the use of a lightsaber has to be justified as an alternative to blasters.

It drops the brutality and rawness of combat in favour of circus theatrics.
And gives it eloquence that I'd expect an order of warrior monks to possess.

Where the original trilogy actually had a sword master plan the lightsaber choreography, the prequel trilogy got a circus performer.
If the OT wanted to get a sword master for a weapon that has no weight, and make it look like a weapon with weight, that's its prerogative. Doesn't make it less silly.

It was anticlimactic ... and directly bullshitted by Kenobi himself with Darth Maul. Anakin could have just hopped onto the ground. Hopped elsewhere.
As I already said, him trying to flip over Obi-Wan is demonstrating character through action.

Remember how Maul got overconfident as well, and paid the price for it?

The reason why it is so fucking disappointing compared to Luke in RotJ is precisely because it lacks sincerity.

No, it's spelt evasion
Funnily enough, that's what you're doing by not answering the original question (what you mean by "Then you'll have no poroblem formulating a sentence rather than saying; "no, u." - apart from ad hominem)

Because she takes him by surprise!
Where?

He gives her an opening, and the funny thing is ... he could have beaten her if he had used his anger. She pulled a Luke out, taps into her anger, taps into her malice, and when Kylo is least expecting it turns the tables on him. That was the whole fucking point of the scene. It portrayed a sliver of darkness in Rey that even Kylo didn't expect, and she taps into that anger to beat him.
Rey tapping into some kind of darkness is pretty much a given, but I don't see anything indicating Kylo is taken by surprise. He's struggling up to that point. Her beating him isn't down to a personal flaw he has.

It was clever dual message that the time Kylo attempts to reach out to another person that they give in to their anger and beat them down. It helps highlight the battle that Kylo has within himself as well as show that Rey isn't perfect.
Disagree, but this is getting down to entirely personal interpretation.

Uh huh. You're one of those people, are you?
What?

Sorry, but I actually like the fact that a lightsaber is just a weapon, and that training doesn't make you invincible.
Quote: "This was the formal weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or random as a blaster. More skill than simple sight was required for its use. An elegant weapon. It was a symbol as well. Anyone can use a blaster or a fusioncutter?but to use a lightsaber well was a mark of someone a cut above the ordinary."

Forgive me for seeing the lightsaber as something more than just a weapon, given that's how it's described when we first see it.

I would rather actually see a fun fight scene that doesn't look like dancing,
Part of the fun is because it looks like, as you call it, "dancing."

than be bored for the sake of lore. And given the way that Rey has grown up, I'm willing to bet she's done more fighting than Ren has.
Junkyard brawls against fighting the enemies of the First Order, and before that, lightsaber training?

Ren's almost certainly had far more experience.

She lives on a world where a quarterstaff is considered a viable weapon. And it's illustrated even before the movie really starts that she knows how to defend herself, and likely because the School of Hard Knocks came a'knocking pretty fucking hard. Just like I reckon a Filipino who grew up in the slums of Manila, despite lacking formal training, might actually surprise a martial artist bleeding out with two or three quick jabs between the ribs.
A quarterstaff isn't a lightsaber. Being good at one doesn't arbitrarily make you good at the other.

Wow ... it's almost as if it's science-fantasy with space monks and laser blasters.
Which is why I'm not too worried about it, even if I appreciate that it's silly within the context of its own lore.

That lightsabers having weight to them when swung, able to knock someone down with powerful strikes, is in the spirit of Star Wars? That fights where these lightsabers have the quality to overpower through strength and momentum make these fights look amazing?
I'd say it's down more to the limitations of the time, since they're really hitting each other with plastic sticks. Prequels did the effects much better in that it's easy to buy that these are energy weapons rather than poles being hit against one another.

It's the emotions of the OT that carry the duels, not the choreography. Going by a visual standpoint alone, they range from laughable (New Hope) to average (RotJ), to...pretty good (Empire). But if the PT and ST convey lightsabers in a manner more befitting their nature (TFA aside), I'm not complaining.

I wouldn't know, I don't read any of the EU stuff. It's almost as if my argument was predicated on the idea of someone like me (heaven forbid) might actually like to watch a Star Wars movie without having to pretend like the EU stuff exists. That, maybe ... just maybe ... the average person that goes to a Star Wars movie is someone like me and they'd rather be entertained than have pointless lore screamed at them that actively gets in the way of the storytelling.

And FYI, that's not "false equivalency" ... it's almost as if an empirical fact of exploring my opinions and personal experience, and the conclusions one can draw to it are still valid.
Personal experience doesn't change the empirical fact that the Star Wars EU is linked to the movies, while the Marvel comics aren't. No matter how you feel about it, it doesn't change this fact.

Star Wars syncing up with its own lore in the movies doesn't inherently hinder them.

No I didn't, I was making an argument about the difference between POV and what I called "panorama" shots. The idea of capturing the world and displaying it without contention.
I can display something, that doesn't mean I'm informing the audience just by that act. Cinematography can be analyzed in lieu of worldbuilding and vice versa.

No, it's not ... I want you to give me an example. If it's so easy, give me an example.
What example? I've cited novel after novel, film after film, I've even provided you the definitions of the words, and you're still saying "give me evidence."

I did so. And yes, I still think it's arbitrary to put hard dividers between worldbuilding and worldpainting. Particularly when it comes to film given you could make that critique of any visual media.

Just like I could say that in a comic, the artist's use of colour helps to convey mood and theme which helps set the tone and allow for easier creation and adoption of the world they have created in the reader's mind.

If they go for a more impressionistic style, it's not just worldpainting, it's about building a stage. And that it crucial to worldbuilding. Give me an example otherwise. It's intellectually bankrupt to pretend like someone is wrong, but not actually challenge their argument when they put it forward.
I can't challenge you because you're not putting anything forward to challenge. You said "I still think it's arbitrary to put hard dividers between worldbuilding and wordpainting." That isn't an argument, and I never said they were completely exclusionary, but I pointed out that those are different realms of analysis, and you can have one without the other.

I mean, okay, let's go back to 2001. The intro sequence of the novel describes a lot of stuff, such as the state of Earth, without showing any of it. Dune

Bam. Worldbuilding without wordpainting. Do you want me to do this for every sci-fi and fantasy novel ever written? Because that's a hell of a lot of novels to get through.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-is-world-building

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/word-painting

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/word-painting
All of which is irrelevant.

Seriously, how the fuck does this actually challenge what I said?
...I give up.

Are you pretending at this point?

How exactly do you have worldbuilding without worldpainting?
Because novels aren't a visual medium.

Because you can have exposition without visuals.

Because you can have a character describe the world without showing it.

Because you can do any number of things without showing them visually, or in the case of wordpainting (not worldpainting, wordpainting), describe a scene without using it to inform the reader of the world.

Moreover how exactly does it challenge my argument that you can't put hard dividers between worldbuilding and worldpainting? If anything, these non-arguments you're putting up validate what I'm saying.
You're not saying anything bar making up arguments I supposedly put forward.

How exactrly is Max's Pursuit Special, and the story behind it as the last of the V8s, not worldbuilding?
Because it doesn't tell us anything bar inference. Is it down to a lack of resources? Improvements in technology? Is it useful for Max, or is he just a car enthusiast? If it's the last, why? How?

It's far too open to interpretation, at least within the context of the film itself.

How is the illusive details that Mad Max is set a decade in the future not worldbuilding?
The film has worldbuilding, but it's vague, and often contradictory.

How is Lord Humungus' guncase not worldbuilding?
As I've already said, I haven't seen Mad Max 2, so I can't comment.

How would describing any of this stuff in a novel not be worldbuilding?
Where did I claim that?

How would describing any of this stuff also not be worldpainting?
It's "wordpainting," not "worldpainting." "Worldpainting" isn't a word.

And again, where did I claim that describing the V8 in a novel wouldn't be wordpainting? If it WAS described, and in detail that is integrated seemlessly with the narrative, then of course it's wordpainting.

Answer me those, because you're the only one arguing against any of these as part of worldbuilding.
I've answered you over and over. Willingly or otherwise, you keep ignoring them.

Not true. Star War personal weapons were inspired by late WW2 firearms. The storyline itself inspired by a Japanese movie...
Which is historically relevant...how?

Right, but putting yourself in the shoes of an Australian at the time of its release, you'd probably get why the movie is dystopian
Which shows that the film arguably hasn't aged well.

Well, despite using direct visuals of bikers stealing fuel? A common enough motif of thieves during the 1973 Energy Crisis, you mean?
We see the bikies do this once in a scene that lasts a minute or so at most, is not led up to, and is never brought up again.

I also wonder if fuel is so scarce why a fuel tanker is going unguarded through what'll become "the Wasteland" in later movies.

Like I said, if the film wants to see us on an oil shortage, it doesn't do a good job.


There's vehicles that have busted down on the roads.
I've been into the country myself, it isn't hard to find busted vehicles. Maybe not to the extent of the film, but rusted vehicles aren't hard to find.

Travellers are scarce, but the road death toll is massive for a small stretch of highway.
57 deaths...over what period of time? It isn't uncommon today to reach double digits on Australian roads just in the holiday period.

Most of the threats ride motorcycles rather than cars...
Not sure what the point is here. Bikies are bad? Um, yeah? They still are.

To put it bluntly, people are stealing something like fuel for a reason despite the dangers and despite conceivably more important things they could steal and loot if petrol wasn't so dear as it was during the Energy Crisis of 1973.
Okay, sure, but where's the fuel stealing going on apart from that one scene?

I disagree. Frankly I think you couldn't tell a Mad Max movie in novel form.
http://madmax.wikia.com/wiki/Mad_Max_(novelisation)

http://madmax.wikia.com/wiki/Mad_Max_2_(novelisation)

http://madmax.wikia.com/wiki/Mad_Max:_Beyond_Thunderdome_(novelisation)

Don't know how good they are, but they exist.

For starters it's a false metric. How do we weigh this?

Yes, books can be as virtually long as they wish to be. But quite clearly it cannot offer the same hypothetical density of information.
It's simple - take the book. Take the film. Use the information from both to compile databases in isolation of each other. The book will almost always have the greater volume of data.

For the same reason my reports look better and more comprehensively understood with visual representations of data as a shortcut to just typing the 500+ different data points and forcing the reader to visualize them themselves. Dare I say it would be an awful report that purposefully obfuscates understanding.
Visual representation doesn't mean much without context, at least as far as worldbuilding goes.

You want another example? Blade Runner. Visuals are great at building the world, but the novel actually explains far more about the world itself.

Despite the fact that seemingly I'm the only one providing examples of my argument?
I've provided example after example. You claiming otherwise doesn't change this.

Because the Mad Max franchise is clearly built for film. Handcrafted for the cinema experience. And aso much of it is pegged in ways that would take too long, or lose all pacing, trying to replicate them in a novel.
If we're talking about just the first film, I disagree, but since I can't comment on the franchise, I won't argue this. Certainly Fury Road at least seems to have great visuals, so there is that.

But what exactly has this got to do about my argument that it's arbitrary to put a hard divider between worldbuilding and worldpainting?
And where have I argued that there IS a hard divider?

Again, it's "wordpainting," not "worldpainting." You can do worldbuilding through wordpainting, but they can exist without each other. But worldbuilding through wordpainting alone in a written work isn't an effective way to do it, since you can only set up the world through inference. Most novels explain their world through either narrative or dialogue. It's very rare where it's left to wordpainting to describe the world, and if it is, usually it's deliberately ambiguous. Take 'The Road' for example - wordpainting is excellent. Worldbuilding is extremely vague. Course that's by design, so it's not really a flaw against it, even if I'm not fond of the novel.

Or another example - the Transall Saga. Time and effort is taken to convey the look of the flora and fauna, but it's dialogue from the Merkon that contextualizes it, and by extension, gives the backstory of how Earth got the way it did in the book (even if the protagonist had already sussed some of it out).

But of course, this will probably just be met with more claims of "give me evidence." I mean, I'd read a hell of a lot of books, but I'll eventually be depleted.
 

Vanilla ISIS

New member
Dec 14, 2015
272
0
0
BreakfastMan said:
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.
How so?
You have so much variety:
Logan (drama), Watchmen (meta drama), Guardians of the Galaxy (comedy), Deadpool (meta comedy), Infinity War (straight fantasy), Legion (horror), Daredevil (crime drama) and that's only movies and TV, the comic books have even more variety.
You can find something you like within the superhero subgenre no matter what you're into.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Hawki said:
Out of the two, Rey's is still more absurd.
Why? Because at the moment this merely sounds contrarian. It's childish.

But to illustrate the point...

Because Kylo wasn't even trying to kill her. That was made plain in scene. In fact he sees the opening ravine behind her, and you can actually see it in his face where he's thinking; "Okay, I can use that..." Beats her over the edge, and effectively bars her exit.

He's already thought he's won. He's cocky. He assumes Rey can't actually do anything about the predicament he's landed her in. You actually see a flicker of his better nature come through. Where before in the fight, he was trying to strike her down, but given the opportunity of the world tearing apart well maybe there's a chance for a peaceful solution in all this?

And Rey effectively uses that to gain the advantage.

They've never really met before that moment. Not really. There's no reason to suspect Rey might actually be a hardened fighter willing to cause pain or be able to actually tap into the malice necessary to actually injure someone. All the times Rey has killed people so far is because she was placed in life or death situations ... but in this, he's offering a peaceful solution.

Which makes it a hell of a lot more believable.

Not sure what you're getting at here.
Because why exactly is there an assumption Kylo is actually good at laser death sticking?

Disagree. I think it looks like an individual would fight, in the knowledge that:

a) The Force allows them to do physical things others couldn't.

b) They exist in a world where the use of a lightsaber has to be justified as an alternative to blasters.
Why?

Officers still dress with cavalry sabres on parade, and in the army I was still taught to fight with a bayonet. Doesn't mean we'd use either. Well ... depending on how fucking desperate the situation got where we had to exchange an M203 with a bayonet. Most of us still wouldn't actually use them even if we were told not to leave the armory without one.

There's stories of marines in the early Iraq conflict where they are outfitted a bayonet... they get to the dispatch, there is a soldier waiting there with a open lockbox, and the soldiers just tossed them into it before heading out. And a bayonet has more utility on an M4 than it does the F88 given the latter's bullpup design. After all, if you're pointing your gun at someone you might as well fire... and with a bullpup, if you're out of bullets you have to incline the rifle upwards to reload, and take your eyes off the field. The benefits of the bullpup is once you master the art of using one on the move to hit targets upwards of 200M range, they have exceptional mobility and utility indoors or other dense terrain.

So the extended projection of the bullpup with bayonet does not provide any tactile benefit, ultimately restricts movement where the bullpup otherwise shines, and it is simply pointlesd on the modern battlefield.

Yet we still train with them, despite the fact that we will never use them, we occasionally would take them into battle. Some things are just traditional. You learn to use them not because of any real reason beyond they exist and it tradition for some soldiers to use them. Just like how Commandos are issued a very special type of knife, the Australian Army Stiletto. Trained to use them extensively, as a weapon designed to easily penetrate beneath and between the ribs and vertebrae, into the vitals from behind.

Some things just become traditional arms that are carried for very special events or reasons, but will never be used (again).

Ditto it seems a leap of logic that Kylo would regularly use his lightsaber.

Kylo seems a wiz with the force. Unlike Vader who could simply block blaster bolts with his hand (I assume so special armour or prosthetics powered by the force?), Kylo can with seeming grace and with little concentration freeze them in midair.

The funny thing is if he had a blaster pistol just prior that fight, he could have killed both Rey and Finn in about 2 seconds. Given Kylo can seemingly just freeze blaster bolts in midair with minimal concentration or effort ... he'd probably be a hell of a lot more effective with a blaster as his go to weapon of choice.

Given that he doesn't need it as a defensive tool against blasters, and alleviating the use of his hands to do force stuff. Like insta-choke soldiers from afar.

Why he doesn't carry one alongside his laser deathstick is perhaps egotistical pride.

And yeah, I get the argument that; "it's a force user thing to use a lightsaber..." but that doesn't seem to discourage them using modern tech like ship blasters and missiles and the like. it doesn't seem to break their codex of rules to not utterly divorce themselves of modern instruments to fight.

And gives it eloquence that I'd expect an order of warrior monks to possess.
Even if the originals didn't have them?

Like none of them?

If the OT wanted to get a sword master for a weapon that has no weight, and make it look like a weapon with weight, that's its prerogative. Doesn't make it less silly.
Silly as compared to, what? A laser deathstick that apparently can repel other laser deathsticks but at the same time wouldn't register much weight of impact despite such assumed electromagnetic resistance? Physics wise, both are fucking silly. But if I'm going to buy the idea of laser deathsticks which can actually repel eachother, it looks better when they're actually repelling eachother.

For example, looking like they have a weightyness to them when they collide...

As I already said, him trying to flip over Obi-Wan is demonstrating character through action.
Rey was demonstrating character through action. Which is what all characters do.

Remember how Maul got overconfident as well, and paid the price for it?
Remember how Kylo decided not to kill Rey, assumed shewas just a hapless girl over a ledge, perhaps couldn't imagine the trials she had been through on Jakku or perhaps just what level of malevolence she might summon?


Funnily enough, that's what you're doing by not answering the original question (what you mean by "Then you'll have no poroblem formulating a sentence rather than saying; "no, u." - apart from ad hominem)
Which was?

Oh that's right ... whether Mad Max as a dystopian film actually measures as dystopian?

Right when Kylo decides to actually try to recruit her, as opposed to trying to kill her. It's almost as if they haven't been properly acquainted and might not expect the level of grit and determination she might display, or the level of her hatred after what he did to his own father.


Sorry, I've heard more than enough critique from the 'Rey is a MS crowd' than I care to recall. Frankly it's irritating AF.

Quote: "This was the formal weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or random as a blaster. More skill than simple sight was required for its use. An elegant weapon. It was a symbol as well. Anyone can use a blaster or a fusioncutter?but to use a lightsaber well was a mark of someone a cut above the ordinary."
Pretty sure Rey counts as a 'cut above ordinary'.

After all .. Luke gets his arse handed to him by a single Tusken raider. On a simple measure, I'm pretty sure Rey could beat up Luke in ANH.

Forgive me for seeing the lightsaber as something more than just a weapon, given that's how it's described when we first see it.
And forgive me for pointing out, Luke is already deflecting multiple droid bolts blindfolded in like 2 days. Despite after getting his arse handed to him by a Tusken raider.

Part of the fun is because it looks like, as you call it, "dancing."
Uh huh... and? Let's then chalk it up to personally tastes, then.

Junkyard brawls against fighting the enemies of the First Order, and before that, lightsaber training?
Yeah, but since when does Ren actually do the fighting? Phasma seemed to be his go-to field commander, and the only time we see Kylo fight with a lightsaber before Rey is Luke in TLJ flashback ... and even then Luke actually stopped himself, and Ren won through force powers.

A quarterstaff isn't a lightsaber. Being good at one doesn't arbitrarily make you good at the other.
You'd be surprised how often various body combat disciplines flow into eachother. Moreover you only ever see Rey use a quarterstaff, doesn't mean she hasn't fought with other improvised or melee weaponry ... the core basics of footwork and agility are also standard.

Other body combat disciplines also teach utilization of the environment.

Which is why I'm not too worried about it, even if I appreciate that it's silly within the context of its own lore.
Uh huh

I'd say it's down more to the limitations of the time, since they're really hitting each other with plastic sticks. Prequels did the effects much better in that it's easy to buy that these are energy weapons rather than poles being hit against one another.
How can you even make that argument?

Clearly lightsabers have some form of electromagnetic resistance otherwise you couldn't block with them. And that resistance, if to directly reflect another blade, means the strength of one's blows is still going to be felt. The only difference is you don't also have the weight of a conventional blade ontop of that resistance.

It's not the weight of the blade itself that creates force.

But I'm more willing to argue if lightsabers can repulse one another, and the blade cannot bend, then you are still going to insulate the force of the blow itself and the force the user exerts into it... if not slightly more, given the people who make lightsabers would overcompensate just to be safe.

It's far more accurate to show Luke dashing away his father's lightsaber with a powerful swing than to just say they magically bounce off eachother as if nothing.

It's the emotions of the OT that carry the duels, not the choreography. Going by a visual standpoint alone, they range from laughable (New Hope) to average (RotJ), to...pretty good (Empire). But if the PT and ST convey lightsabers in a manner more befitting their nature (TFA aside), I'm not complaining.
You're just needlessly making banter over why magical laser deathsticks shouldn't convey motion of being struck despite not making sense?

Star Wars syncing up with its own lore in the movies doesn't inherently hinder them.
Uh huh. Never argued that ... I also won't care if they do or not, because how would I know? ... But if you're spouting pointless lore that will bore everyone, you're already doing something wrong.

I can display something, that doesn't mean I'm informing the audience just by that act. Cinematography can be analyzed in lieu of worldbuilding and vice versa.
Not arguing that.

What example? I've cited novel after novel, film after film, I've even provided you the definitions of the words, and you're still saying "give me evidence."
Where? See I seem to be the only one actual showing you examples.

I count three books you've cited. And one of them I haven't read.

Whereas I've actually shown scenes, footage, stills, background history...

I can't challenge you because you're not putting anything forward to challenge.
Just in Star Wars alone I've linked 5 different duels and outlined precisely why the prequels are problematic.

So far the best defence I've gotten is; "But no, they're energy based..."

I mean, okay, let's go back to 2001. The intro sequence of the novel describes a lot of stuff, such as the state of Earth, without showing any of it.

Dune...

Bam. Worldbuilding without wordpainting. Do you want me to do this for every sci-fi and fantasy novel ever written? Because that's a hell of a lot of novels to get through.
The Kubrick film is a masterpiece of cinematography, however. And it has spawned countless interpretations. Countless essays on it. It is intrinsically wonderful, evocative, mesmerizing, and everyone who watches it will come away with mind-blowing hypotheticals of what it all means.

What was wrong with the Dune movie?

And there is a metric fuckton of books. Are we talking all of them, because I haven't read any but the first. In fact it's been 15 years since I read Dune. But do you know what sticks out for me when it comes to Dune? Patrick Stewart and Sting. The fact that I didn't bother to read The Dune Messiah is probably telling, however.

Because novels aren't a visual medium. Because you can have exposition without visuals. Because you can have a character describe the world without showing it. Because you can do any number of things without showing them visually, or in the case of wordpainting (not worldpainting, wordpainting), describe a scene without using it to inform the reader of the world.
Which also means they lose out on visual symbolism, they have definitive issues in translation into other languages, and even the simplest statements require conjecture and self involvement of the reader?

Okay, I concede the argument, you can have worldbuilding or wordpainting, without the other. But it's utterly irrelevant to film.

Because it doesn't tell us anything bar inference. Is it down to a lack of resources? Improvements in technology? Is it useful for Max, or is he just a car enthusiast? If it's the last, why? How?
Clearly the movie tells you all these details. And if you're still asking the importance of the Pursuit Special is because Max is just really into cars, clearly you weren't paying attention to the movie.

Repeatedly it is told to you that the car is unique.

Fucking repeatedly. Macaffee had to barter for it from Labartouche, Barry tells you it's now one of a kind. Max is a car enthusiast, Macaffee uses the vehicle to bribe Max's participation on the MFP ... but that 'specialness' is precisely because they're now rare, and the MFP is now making do by scavenging parts or haggling with other police forces for vehicles and parts.

Worldbuilding does not need to be purely exposition. It's as if bad worldbuilding is purely exposition. It can be given through hints, symbolism, poetics, or perhaps as a vague mystery as in Mad Max.

That doesn't suggest bad worldbuilding, in fact, just like Mad Max, it can make it incredibly effective in a dystopian movie. As it helps sell the idea of confusion or isolation.

Which shows that the film arguably hasn't aged well.
Or you're clueless...

We see the bikies do this once in a scene that lasts a minute or so at most, is not led up to, and is never brought up again.
Why would it need to be shown twice? And for your information ... the reason why one might pick a motorcycle to tour the country during a fuel shortage is because they're fuel efficient.

My FZR1000 would get me 18km/L on open roads.

I also wonder if fuel is so scarce why a fuel tanker is going unguarded through what'll become "the Wasteland" in later movies.
Because the police are underfunded and the cities are going to hell as made clear in the intro to MM2?

Also there is a large time gap between the subsequent movies?

Also the fact that they're not set in the same place?

Gee ... it's almost as if you need to pay attention to details...

Like I said, if the film wants to see us on an oil shortage, it doesn't do a good job.
Or you have no idea what you're talking about?


I've been into the country myself, it isn't hard to find busted vehicles. Maybe not to the extent of the film, but rusted vehicles aren't hard to find.
Just lying in the middle of the road?

57 deaths...over what period of time? It isn't uncommon today to reach double digits on Australian roads just in the holiday period.
Over a small section of highway, and the sign clearly says "this year."

It also says in big letters; "High Fatality Road..." and the sign was erected after the establishment of the MFP given they're listed on it.

It's simple - take the book. Take the film. Use the information from both to compile databases in isolation of each other. The book will almost always have the greater volume of data.
Well I can tell that's a lie, because I've read some appalling novelizations of films. It's also a fucking stupid metric.

Also I haven't read this Transall Saga. 13 year old survival enthusiast? Pass.

As a counter example, however. Where movies create a better, richer narrative experience to their novel counterparts ... James Bond movies vs. novellas.
 

Samtemdo8_v1legacy

New member
Aug 2, 2015
7,915
0
0
bartholen said:
Samtemdo8 said:
Smithnikov said:
Samtemdo8 said:
Also Warhammer Fantasy > Warhammer 40,000.
Damn STRAIGHT.
Fire, Faith, and Steel.

Sigmar > God Emperor of Mankind, Tomb Kings > Necrons, High Elves > Eldar.
More of an Ar-Ulric man here, but Sigmar was cool by him, so it's all good.
Though to be fair, I still wish for my Dream 40k game to happen, basically a big AAA game with more or less the gameplay of Advanaced Wars on bigger scale:
Have you heard of the Ultimate Apocalypse mod for Dawn of War: Soulstorm? It's basically a next-gen Dawn of War on steroids. It adds literally dozens of units, buildings, maps, entire new factions (like Daemons, Inquisition and Tyranids), new gameplay mechanics, blows the scale up like 20-fold and allows you to field hundreds upon hundreds of combatants. It's basically the definitive WH40k game.
Installed it once....did not like it, way too messy and unorginized.

Tried installing it again, but I get errors that prevents me to install it properly.
 

Samuki Elm

New member
Dec 11, 2012
12
0
0
I kinda agree with the original post - most "fantasy" is boring. And I feel it's simply rooted in that most fantasy is rather uncreative. We all know what people mean when we say "fantasy" - it means that general realm of a pseudo-medieval society in a pre-modern era, with swords, axes, horses, knights, wizards, dragons, magic, elves, dwarves, and so on - maybe not all of the elements, but some mix of those elements. The vast majority of fantasy - the overwhelming majority - the near-totality - of fantasy is an author approaching this general discourse and putting their own spin on it.

And that's fine - plenty of good fantasy has been written based on that. But it means a lot of it is quite formulaic. I say this as a big fantasy geek - someone who was really, really, REALLY into the genre when I was younger and still finds it a comfort zone now. And honestly, all that exposure to fantasy, the immersion I had into the culture - it actually bred a distaste for fantasy. Because so much of it was uninspired, and similar, and boring - a slight twist on the standard formula that adds little. And now, I'm in this peculiar state where I love fantasy ... but unable to stand reading through a fantasy book. For example, despite my massive fantasy geekery, I'm not a Game of Thrones fan - not because I hate Game of Thrones, but because I cannot bring myself to sit down and watch it through. I've heard it's quite good. But I can't watch the show or read the books for very long because it seems so familiar to all the dreck I've read in my lifetime.

(And I've read such terrible fantasy titles - books you have never heard of by authors with no inspiration who somehow churned out entire series that I'm surprised ever got approved by a publisher, and I read every book in the series. Why did I do that? I don't know - I didn't enjoy any of it, and I forgot everything at the end. If I'd dedicated all the time I spent reading terrible fantasy books that I would immediately forget towards reading anything else, I'd probably have a doctorate by now. You know the saying that you need 10,000 hours of practice to master a skill? I would be an expert in terrible fantasy novels, except I retained no memory of them, save various flashes of the worst scenes.)

Back on topic - "fantasy" as a genre has become boring because too many authors simply can't break the mold. The title of the genre is "fantasy" - it's supposed to encompass the entire infinite realm of imagination of things that cannot be. It doesn't have to be frigging elves and dwarves again. Doesn't have to be swords or magic artifacts or the bloody hero's journey.

And there are authors who do recognize this. Very good authors who really exercise the limits of their creativity, to write things that are weird and bizarre and completely unique and beautiful. Oddly enough, these authors are often not categorized as "fantasy" - because their books have no dwarves and elves.

(Also because being called a fantasy author can be a kiss of death for an aspiring writer's career, and the author's agent advises they avoid that label.)
 

Rangaman

New member
Feb 28, 2016
508
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!
A) Fantasy, as a genre, covers a lot of ground. All fantasy? So, Science Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, Fantasy Horror, etc. are all samey and boring to you? What I think you're complaining about is what is called "High Fantasy" by pillocks and "traditional fantasy" by the common people. If so, I do agree with you that people need to look outside of "High Fantasy Tropes" box, but writing off the genre as a whole is more than a bit dickish.

B) What use is it complaining about it? Traditional Fantasy being a stale, dead-in-the-water genre is old news. People have been saying that for years.
 
Oct 22, 2011
1,223
0
0
Bedinsis said:
I've heard Earthsea draws on different sources; was the Le Guin novel you've read from that series?
dscross said:
Lol. That's quite a lot of fantasy really mate. You've read most of the most popular authors, except Lewis Caroll and JK Rowling. Which Discworld novels and Earthsea book did you read?
"Wizard of Earthsea" was the LeGuin's book i have read. It was alright, but didn't hook me on the series. Maybe i'll come back to it later.

As of Discworld, i have read, let's see... in the alphabetical order: FaustEric, Hogfather, Mort, Reaper Man, The Amazing Maurice..., The Truth, Unseen Academics and Wintersmith.
Yeah, it's kind of all over the place, but i mostly picked Discworld whenever it was available at a library, arcs be damned.

I don't know, overall, it didn't seem that much to me, but i haven't mention things like Fables(just started with it) or Gaiman's works, since i count these as urban fantasy, or whatever the correct term would be.
(And yeah umm... so is Harry Potter, which i've also read:))

Samtemdo8 said:


FUCK LOGIC, FUCK IT IN THE ASS!!!
Pal, that isn't even the weirdest cosmological myth out there.
And what's more important, some people actually believed in them once, as opposed to parody of myths like these.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
So the genre best associated to magic and imagination, is dull? Either you are being very narrow in what defines "fantasy", or you lack imagination.

I mean yeah, you have the tolkien inspired sword and sorcery high fantasy as a subgenre, and within it a lot of filler. But that isn't all fantasy is or can be, and even among that subgenre itself, there is a lot of variety and potential.

From dinosaur riding knights, to semi-absurd diskworld tales, to more "classic" d&d-like stories and settings, I'd say fantasy has the widest potential to avoid being dull outside of sci-fi.


Arnoxthe1 said:
Not a refutation of OP's point, but read Roger Zelazny sometime. Specifically, the Chronicles of Amber.
Holy crap, been a few years but I still remember that one.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,487
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
Why? Because at the moment this merely sounds contrarian. It's childish.
Because disagreeing with you is automatically both these things.

Because Kylo wasn't even trying to kill her. That was made plain in scene. In fact he sees the opening ravine behind her, and you can actually see it in his face where he's thinking; "Okay, I can use that..." Beats her over the edge, and effectively bars her exit.
Disagree. It's clear throughout the scene that while Kylo may have the upper hand until Rey's "the Force...the Force!" moment (good dialogue r us), he's giving it his all. Him pressing her to join him is being on the diplomatic offensive in addition to the physical one.

He's already thought he's won. He's cocky. He assumes Rey can't actually do anything about the predicament he's landed her in. You actually see a flicker of his better nature come through. Where before in the fight, he was trying to strike her down, but given the opportunity of the world tearing apart well maybe there's a chance for a peaceful solution in all this?
Completely disagree with this interpretation (see above)

And Rey effectively uses that to gain the advantage.
Rey gaining the advantage is more due to her tapping into her innate abilities rather than a slip-up of Kylo - the novelization makes this quite clear

Because why exactly is there an assumption Kylo is actually good at laser death sticking?
-Because he has a light saber, and he's good enough with it to deflect laser bolts.

-Because he's shown (and told) to have immense raw strength in the Force.

-Because he's been stated to have been trained by Snoke and Luke (at the least, he was at his Academy)

-Factoring in TLJ, he has a lightsaber before his fallout with Luke.

There's everything to suggest that Kylo is good at fighting with a lightsaber, and little there isn't - him losing to Rey says more about her character than his (at least in TFA, TLJ alleviates it somewhat when Snoke calls him out for his failure)

Ditto it seems a leap of logic that Kylo would regularly use his lightsaber.

Kylo seems a wiz with the force. Unlike Vader who could simply block blaster bolts with his hand (I assume so special armour or prosthetics powered by the force?), Kylo can with seeming grace and with little concentration freeze them in midair.

The funny thing is if he had a blaster pistol just prior that fight, he could have killed both Rey and Finn in about 2 seconds. Given Kylo can seemingly just freeze blaster bolts in midair with minimal concentration or effort ... he'd probably be a hell of a lot more effective with a blaster as his go to weapon of choice.
Okay, sure, Jedi can benefit from using blasters, but comparing it to bayonets is sabers is a false comparison because sabers are woefully outclassed by modern arms. Lightsabers aren't by blasters. 1v1, a Jedi/Sith will win against some smuck with a blaster.

Also, is Vader seen using a blaster? Is Luke post-ESB? Is any Jedi in the prequels bar Obi-Wan, at which point he gives his "so uncivilized" line?

And yeah, I get the argument that; "it's a force user thing to use a lightsaber..." but that doesn't seem to discourage them using modern tech like ship blasters and missiles and the like. it doesn't seem to break their codex of rules to not utterly divorce themselves of modern instruments to fight.
Can't use a lightsaber in space.

It's maybe arbitrary, but who's complaining?

And gives it eloquence that I'd expect an order of warrior monks to possess.
Even if the originals didn't have them?

Like none of them?
The original have three lightsaber users. One old man, one man who needs a breathing apparatus to survive (in the EU, it's explained how Vader had to adjust his fighting style to compensate for his lack of mobility), and one boy who learns to be a Jedi over time. Compare that to Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan/Maul, who are all in their physical prime, who exist when the Order is at its height, plus Anakin, who gets to train for ten years between Ep. 1 and 2.

Also, I don't buy the idea that if x does something, everything's obliged to follow x. You can account for advances in technology in a series that's reliant on the technology of the time.

Which was?

Oh that's right ... whether Mad Max as a dystopian film actually measures as dystopian?
I'd say again that taking Mad Max in isolation of anything else, it doesn't.

Pretty sure Rey counts as a 'cut above ordinary'.

After all .. Luke gets his arse handed to him by a single Tusken raider. On a simple measure, I'm pretty sure Rey could beat up Luke in ANH.
Yeah, but Rey is so far above ordinary in TFA, well, y'know...

And forgive me for pointing out, Luke is already deflecting multiple droid bolts blindfolded in like 2 days. Despite after getting his arse handed to him by a Tusken raider.
Still a long way from Rey - the equivalent would be if Luke ran over to Darth Vader in ep. 4 and beat him then and there.

Yeah, but since when does Ren actually do the fighting?
-Jakku (calling it a "fight" might be a stretch, but he does show that he's really strong in the Force)

-Takodana (deflects Rey's blaster bolts)

-Flashback (don't see the fight, but the brief glimpse of Kylo and the Knights of Ren show that he's done a lot of the dirty work)

-Established that Snoke's been training him. Presumably that includes lightsaber combat
Where? See I seem to be the only one actual showing you examples.

I count three books you've cited. And one of them I haven't read.
Novels I've cited include:

-Star Wars: The Fight for Justice

-Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

-Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith (novelization)

-2001: A Space Odyssey (novel version)

-1984

-Star Wars Roleplaying Game Saga Edition Core Rulebook

-Star Wars: A New Hope (novelization)

-Dune

-Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

-The Road

-The Transall Saga

And indirectly, The Big Dry, and the Mad Max novelizations

Whereas I've actually shown scenes, footage, stills, background history...
Congratualtions, you can link to YouTube.

Just in Star Wars alone I've linked 5 different duels and outlined precisely why the prequels are problematic.
And I've explained why I disagree with your assessment.

So far the best defence I've gotten is; "But no, they're energy based..."
Fine. Let's start again. I don't have a problem with the duels of the prequels (in terms of concept) is:

-Lightsabers are near weightless (the cited weight is 1kg), so it makes sense that they'd be easy to wield in terms of weight (as someone who's held actual broadswords, let me tell you, these things are heavy)

-The Jedi/Sith are able to move in means that 'lesser mortals' can't (speed, agility, sensory perception, etc.)

-It makes the lightsaber a viable weapon within its own universe, and counteracts why the Jedi/Sith don't need blasters (as best it can)

The Kubrick film is a masterpiece of cinematography, however. And it has spawned countless interpretations. Countless essays on it. It is intrinsically wonderful, evocative, mesmerizing, and everyone who watches it will come away with mind-blowing hypotheticals of what it all means.
Which says nothing about worldbuilding.

You like 2001? Fine. I dislike the film, but consider the novel to be excellent.

Moving on:

What was wrong with the Dune movie?
https://www.tor.com/2017/04/18/david-lynchs-dune-is-what-you-get-when-you-build-a-science-fictional-world-with-no-interest-in-science-fiction/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj-b7Hjy-T8

And adding my own 2 cents:

-Writing is poor (especially the use of internal monologues)

-Effects are poor (this goes right down to the choreography - the Sardekar suffer especially because of this)

-Worldbuilding is poor (there's little to distinguish between any of the planets bar Dune itself)

-The Harkonnens...what the fuck?

-It's antithical to the themes of the novel (how Paul is conveyed)

-Pacing is extremely slow, but it doesn't have the depth to provide any real substance

Clearly the movie tells you all these details. And if you're still asking the importance of the Pursuit Special is because Max is just really into cars, clearly you weren't paying attention to the movie.

Repeatedly it is told to you that the car is unique.

Fucking repeatedly. Macaffee had to barter for it from Labartouche, Barry tells you it's now one of a kind. Max is a car enthusiast, Macaffee uses the vehicle to bribe Max's participation on the MFP ... but that 'specialness' is precisely because they're now rare, and the MFP is now making do by scavenging parts or haggling with other police forces for vehicles and parts.
Not disputing the V8 is rare - of course it's rare, the film establishes that it's rare - but it never explains why it's rare.

Worldbuilding does not need to be purely exposition. It's as if bad worldbuilding is purely exposition. It can be given through hints, symbolism, poetics, or perhaps as a vague mystery as in Mad Max.
That's true, but there's the opposite extreme of providing no context whatsoever.

Or you're clueless...
Ad hominem...nice.

Why would it need to be shown twice?
It doesn't, but if you show one random scene that's never brought up or never given context, the scene itself doesn't have much relevance. Again, if you cut the fuel hijack from the movie, what's actually lost in terms of any story elements?

I also wonder if fuel is so scarce why a fuel tanker is going unguarded through what'll become "the Wasteland" in later movies.
Because the police are underfunded and the cities are going to hell as made clear in the intro to MM2?
First of all, this is mainly in the context of MM1 - can't comment on sequels, and as I've said, I don't think MM1 sells dystopia by itself. That was the original point I made.

Second of all, if you're low on resources, you still tend to allocate those resources to the most necessary assets. If Mad Max 1's world is undergoing an oil shortage, then you'd want to protect the oil.

Also there is a large time gap between the subsequent movies?

Also the fact that they're not set in the same place?

Gee ... it's almost as if you need to pay attention to details...
For the last time, I can't comment on the other movies, the entire point of this discussion is (or was) that taking MM1 by itself, in isolation of any other material, there isn't much to sell it as dystopia. At most, you could cite a reduction in law and order. There's no indication that this is endemic to anywhere outside its own geographic location, and it could be accounted for in any number of reasons. If the criteria for dystopia is as simple as that, then a lot of films are dystopic.

Just lying in the middle of the road?
Middle of the road? No. In sight of the road? Yes.

Also, why are they even in the road? Tow truck services still exist (Goose is helped), ambulance services still exist (the car wreck scene Max and Affi walk through) and presumably those wrecks got to the junker yard somehow, and those wrecks disappear as soon as Max and co. leave the area, so...go figure.

Over a small section of highway, and the sign clearly says "this year."

It also says in big letters; "High Fatality Road..." and the sign was erected after the establishment of the MFP given they're listed on it.
Don't know when in the year though.

That aside, obvious the film wants you to know that a lot of people are dying on the road. And given the film's production, I get Miller wanted to draw attention to that. But if this world is experiencing an oil shortage, you'd think there'd be less cars (and ergo, less accidents), not more.

Well I can tell that's a lie, because I've read some appalling novelizations of films.
That was about books adapted to books, not film novelizations. And that bad novelizations exist doesn't say anything. Good novelizations exist. Novelizations exist that even surpass the film.

It's also a fucking stupid metric.
Because maths is bad, don'tya know?

Also, the A Song of Ice and Fire wiki (novel exclusive) has 7,471 articles. The Game of Thrones wiki has 3,877 articles. If we remove out-of-universe articles, the GoT wiki would experience a far more drastic drop. Both fanbases are active, but even having gone beyond the novels' storyline, the GoT wiki is smaller. Why? Because you can go into far more detail in a novel than a TV series, and certainly far more in detail than a film, which is hindered by running time and ability to convey detail.

Also I haven't read this Transall Saga. 13 year old survival enthusiast? Pass.
Your loss.

As a counter example, however. Where movies create a better, richer narrative experience to their novel counterparts ... James Bond movies vs. novellas.
This was originally about worldbuilding, not narrative.

Also, James Bond doesn't really engage in worldbuilding in the same way an actual constructed world does. No-one reads/watches/plays James Bond to learn about the world he operates in, because the world is more or less our own (stuff like SPECTRE, Baron Samedi, and death satellites aside).
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,487
900
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Also, since it keeps coming up, I watched the intro to Mad Max 2 - funnily enough, it does more worldbuilding for MM1 than MM1 does in its entirety. In that it establishes that:

1) A war between two superpowers has occurred/is occurring (I'd have thought this would be the Western and Eastern blocs, but going by the wiki, it's actually Iran and Saudi Arabia)

2) The war triggers an oil production shortfall, which leads to the international community trying to solve the crisis through diplomacy, but failing

3) The oil shortage leads to riots in cities - armed forces are deployed to try and keep the peace.

4) Law and order collapses on the roads, leading to pillaging. Gangs take over the highways

So, again, I ask, how much of this is actually conveyed in Mad Max itself? Of the above points, at best, I could say only point 4, and even then, we don't see any evidence of this outside Toecutter's gang. I'll also point out that in MM1, in a world where law and order collapses, there's still ambulance services, hospital services, tow truck services, train services, disposal services (in that someone apparently took the time to put Nightrider's body in a coffin...no idea what happened to his girlfriend's body) and apparently Goose can still frequent bars and night clubs, and Max and co. can still go on a road trip, and buy ice-cream while still getting a spare tyre, to end up on a farm that seems quite peaceful.

Thing is, even if I've only seen the first movie, MM1 does strike me as the odd one out based on what I've seen of the subsequent movies (including a portion of Beyond Thunderdome), and to quote a ranking of the first film:

The original Mad Max from 1979 definitely shows its age today, and the fact that Miller and his team had something like $3,000 to shoot the film. Even though it kickstarted the Mad Max franchise it doesn?t feel like a Mad Max movie if you watched either of the two 80?s entries before it. The stunt driving is still pretty intense, and you get to see the birth of ?Mad Max,? but the rural town setting and skimpy plot just don?t exude the feeling of humans living in a wasteland like the three films released after it. It just has an all around campy B-movie feel, but it?s still worth a viewing to give some perspective into the character of Max, and what ultimately drove him mad and off to the wastelands of Australia.

Course that's just one review, but, yeah.