Queen of the Edit
- Feb 4, 2009
Okay, please articulate how baton twirling is somehow better than this...Hawki said:Claims it looks shit, posts a video that shows it doesn't look shit.
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?
Then you'll have no poroblem formulating a sentence rather than saying; "no, u."Many times.
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 FalconNot in the same style as TFA, where Rey is swinging it all around.
Right ....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.
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.
And this invalidates the argument because ....?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.
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.
Bullshit, I literally use those words; "bring the scene to a satisfactory conclusion..." in my original argument. Try again.You're all over the place, I can't "pretend otherwise" when the points you make keep changing.
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.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.
Where did I shift my argument?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.
Point to me where.
So you claim. Prove it. Because so far you haven't even bothered to address the examples I've given.Course it does. How is this related specifically to worldbuilding? Wordpainting has applications beyond just worldbuilding.
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.I thought this was about Mad Max, not Mad Max 2?
Anyway, I've only seen the first film, so, sure.
And yes, it is worldbuilding when taken into the context of everything else.
So? I wasn't alive when the first Star Wars movie came out .. and yet I'm talking about that as well.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).
Relevance? And clearly the MFP have no problems getting fuel. After all, the MFP are a Highway patrol unit protecting transcontinental highways.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).
Sorry, disagree. A book would be plainly boring if it attempted to display a tenth of the world detail as a movie.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.
You know these aren't actually arguments?
And?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.
How?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.
Worldbuilding is very much a part of storytelling.Which says far more about storytelling than worldbuilding.
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.The point you're making is that a writer with little, if any film experience...makes a bad film...
And speaking of someone with zero real film experience ...
Have you heard of George Miller's Mad Max?
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.Gee, imagine that, a writer being miffed that the director took liberties with his novel, including completely changing the persona of Jack...