Poll: Hating a setting. Possible?

[Kermi]

I don't feel you can dislike a setting. I personally am not fond of western films myself, but I have watched some great ones - They Call Me Trinity/Trinity is Still My Name, Fistful of Dollars/For a Few Dollars More/The Good, The Bad and the Ugly; Support Your Local Sheriff and the 90's remake of Maverick. Hell, even Blazing Saddles is a western, right?
Granted, apart from the Clint Eastwood 'Dollars' trilogy those are mostly comedies, but still. It just goes to show I can't hate the setting in and of itself if there are good movies, or at least entertaining movies.

If the movie is entertaining enough the setting doesn't matter. Granted, the setting contributes a lot to the end product - I don't think you could do 'Dollars' or Trinity in an urban environment. Then again, if you put Blazing Saddles in the middle ages you get Robin Hood: Men in Tights so maybe my logic is flawed.

Anyway, I know I haven't explained myself as well as I'd like, but ultimately what matters is how the story turns out and how you engage with the characters. I understand the western setting hate, because I find most westerns kind of shit. Then again I also dislike war movies, with notable exceptions like Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now.

I guess if I can make exceptions for every setting there is I can't hate the setting - I just hate the majority of films in that setting.

Now if you've watched a nice spread of films in the Western setting and still can't find anything redeeming or the setting alone is so horrendously offputting that you can't give them a chance, I guess it's possible to hate the setting alone. Who am I to really say what your feelings are?

 

[Tharwen]

My favourite setting is a futuristic dystopia.
Never got the chance to read or watch something with that setting though.

I hope that was some massive sarcasm.

No it was not.
My favourite day dreams and fantasies are set in futuristic dystopias.

Am I misunderstanding what dystopia means?

What about Half-Life, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Firefly (to some extent), and Star Wars?

 

[Wordslinger]

Imagine a world where you're constantly being punched, and nothing else happens.
Of course a setting can ruin a story. Tell your friend he's stupid for me, will you?

 

[Kermi]

Imagine a world where you're constantly being punched, and nothing else happens.
Of course a setting can ruin a story. Tell your friend he's stupid for me, will you?

Well no, that would really fall into a 'genre'. A very limited, niche facepunching genre, but a genre. It would be the same idea regardless of whether it were in a western setting or a science fiction one.

 

[Syphous]

Of course you can hate a setting. That seems like a stupid argument to me.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

You can hate a setting in the same way you can loathe living in a crappy apartment: you don't like it, but you've got no choice but to be surrounded by it. That can lead to some pretty strong feelings of hatred.

 

[Baby Tea]

So I ask thee, Escapist. Who was right all along?

I think you both are right, really.
If the story is good, then it can be translated into any setting, making it enjoyable for everyone.
But certainly there are settings that don't appeal to everyone. I don't see how he could defend that. Although, thinking about it now, I can't think of a single setting that I don't like. So take that as you will.

 

[Wordslinger]

Imagine a world where you're constantly being punched, and nothing else happens.
Of course a setting can ruin a story. Tell your friend he's stupid for me, will you?

Well no, that would really fall into a 'genre'. A very limited, niche facepunching genre, but a genre. It would be the same idea regardless of whether it were in a western setting or a science fiction one.

By your definition of 'genre', there is no such thing as a setting.
To placate you, I will amend my original post: Imagine a movie about someone who goes to hell, and all that happens in hell is a demon punching you in the face forever, and nothing else happens.
Better?

 

[WanderingFool]

(The Western almost always having the dashing lead at whom women throw themselves)

?

I guess when I think of Western protagonist, this comes to mind.

Cool, yes, but bit grizzled and ugly (no offense Mr. Eastwood).

Him or...

Also, I think a combination of setting, plot, characters, and other factors are what makes or breaks a story. But an even more important factor which cannot be controlled by the story creator, a persons personal taste. If you dont like Sci-Fi or Westerns, you probably never will.

 

[Kermi]

Imagine a world where you're constantly being punched, and nothing else happens.
Of course a setting can ruin a story. Tell your friend he's stupid for me, will you?

Well no, that would really fall into a 'genre'. A very limited, niche facepunching genre, but a genre. It would be the same idea regardless of whether it were in a western setting or a science fiction one.

By your definition of 'genre', there is no such thing as a setting.
To placate you, I will amend my original post: Imagine a movie about someone who goes to hell, and all that happens in hell is a demon punching you in the face forever, and nothing else happens.
Better?

The setting is truly the place the story takes place in, and that's it. A Western is typically called such because of where it's "set". Now your standard western is about gunslinging cowboys and whatnot, so the concept of the "western" transcends setting and bleeds over into genre to a large degree, to the extent that you can have Western-style stories set in space (see Cowboy Bebop, Star Wars).
People hate genres, usually: romantic comedies, war movies, martial arts movies, dramas, etc. This is why when people say they hate Westerns they usually mean the genre.

But it's also reasonable to say you hate the setting in the case of the Western because while a romance or comedy can take place anywhere, Westerns take place in the "old west" (or more commonly, some desolate part of Italy pretending to be the old west in most cases - see: "spaghetti westerns").

But let's not be mistaken: it's the setting we're referring to here.

If you hate all movies set in hell, then you hate "hell" movies. But face-punching movies can take place everywhere. The only way you can aptly compare your analogy to the "Western" is if hell in and of itself was endless face-punching, to the degree that endless fancepunch hell was a desciptor for both setting AND genre.

 

[Wordslinger]

Imagine a world where you're constantly being punched, and nothing else happens.
Of course a setting can ruin a story. Tell your friend he's stupid for me, will you?

Well no, that would really fall into a 'genre'. A very limited, niche facepunching genre, but a genre. It would be the same idea regardless of whether it were in a western setting or a science fiction one.

By your definition of 'genre', there is no such thing as a setting.
To placate you, I will amend my original post: Imagine a movie about someone who goes to hell, and all that happens in hell is a demon punching you in the face forever, and nothing else happens.
Better?

The setting is truly the place the story takes place in, and that's it. A Western is typically called such because of where it's "set". Now your standard western is about gunslinging cowboys and whatnot, so the concept of the "western" transcends setting and bleeds over into genre to a large degree, to the extent that you can have Western-style stories set in space (see Cowboy Bebop, Star Wars).
People hate genres, usually: romantic comedies, war movies, martial arts movies, dramas, etc. This is why when people say they hate Westerns they usually mean the genre.

But it's also reasonable to say you hate the setting in the case of the Western because while a romance or comedy can take place anywhere, Westerns take place in the "old west" (or more commonly, some desolate part of Italy pretending to be the old west in most cases - see: "spaghetti westerns").

But let's not be mistaken: it's the setting we're referring to here.

If you hate all movies set in hell, then you hate "hell" movies. But face-punching movies can take place everywhere. The only way you can aptly compare your analogy to the "Western" is if hell in and of itself was endless face-punching, to the degree that endless fancepunch hell was a desciptor for both setting AND genre.

Actually, that's exactly what I meant.
Hell is a setting.
A hell where you're constantly being being punched in the face and nothing else happens is also a setting.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Kermi]

Imagine a world where you're constantly being punched, and nothing else happens.
Of course a setting can ruin a story. Tell your friend he's stupid for me, will you?

Well no, that would really fall into a 'genre'. A very limited, niche facepunching genre, but a genre. It would be the same idea regardless of whether it were in a western setting or a science fiction one.

By your definition of 'genre', there is no such thing as a setting.
To placate you, I will amend my original post: Imagine a movie about someone who goes to hell, and all that happens in hell is a demon punching you in the face forever, and nothing else happens.
Better?

The setting is truly the place the story takes place in, and that's it. A Western is typically called such because of where it's "set". Now your standard western is about gunslinging cowboys and whatnot, so the concept of the "western" transcends setting and bleeds over into genre to a large degree, to the extent that you can have Western-style stories set in space (see Cowboy Bebop, Star Wars).
People hate genres, usually: romantic comedies, war movies, martial arts movies, dramas, etc. This is why when people say they hate Westerns they usually mean the genre.

But it's also reasonable to say you hate the setting in the case of the Western because while a romance or comedy can take place anywhere, Westerns take place in the "old west" (or more commonly, some desolate part of Italy pretending to be the old west in most cases - see: "spaghetti westerns").

But let's not be mistaken: it's the setting we're referring to here.

If you hate all movies set in hell, then you hate "hell" movies. But face-punching movies can take place everywhere. The only way you can aptly compare your analogy to the "Western" is if hell in and of itself was endless face-punching, to the degree that endless fancepunch hell was a desciptor for both setting AND genre.

Actually, that's exactly what I meant.
Hell is a setting.
A hell where you're constantly being being punched in the face and nothing else happens is also a setting.

Well, let's assume then the "setting" is, purely, the receiving end of a fist to the face and there is absolutely no development beyond that - which would mean facepunching is irrevocably the genre as well.
It's a terrible example, but in this instance I have to acknowledge that in this instance it may be possible to hate the "setting", but we're really stretching the boundaries of traditional cinema here with some very poor analogies because you're limiting the film to consist of nothign BUT setting. The Western setting/genre allows for considerably more variation than this. If you truly feel that seeing a Western setting is just as offputting as being endlessly facepunched regardless of all other elements within the story, not to mention the story itself, then I guess it's possible to hate the Western "setting".

But I disagree that this is the case.

 

[Guest_Star]

Of course you can hate a setting, because the setting dictates how characters interact with their environment, since the setting IS THE ENVIRONMENT.

Like me personally, I don't like movies that are set completely in the ocean. Seriously, I dare you, name a good movie that was set in the ocean, you can't (yes, I didn't like Titanic).

Das Boot.

OT:
What bugs me isn't so much the settings in themselves, it's when they are inconsistent (mostly due to lazy writers) or blatantly wrong (obvious anachronisms in history dramas and such).

A recent example; "Book of Eli". Post-apocalyptic world, presumably the result of nuclear war, drinkable water is scarce, cannibalism is rife due to lack of other sources of nutrients, etc...
Where do people grow their vegetables? Until the end of the movie, there isn't a single greenish ting around.
So, how do everybody avoid scurvy, beriberi etc? Why are almost nobody sunburned, even tho they need sunglasses all the time? Where's the infrastructure that allows Carnegie to transport water into town?

 

[Wordslinger]

Imagine a world where you're constantly being punched, and nothing else happens.
Of course a setting can ruin a story. Tell your friend he's stupid for me, will you?

Well no, that would really fall into a 'genre'. A very limited, niche facepunching genre, but a genre. It would be the same idea regardless of whether it were in a western setting or a science fiction one.

By your definition of 'genre', there is no such thing as a setting.
To placate you, I will amend my original post: Imagine a movie about someone who goes to hell, and all that happens in hell is a demon punching you in the face forever, and nothing else happens.
Better?

The setting is truly the place the story takes place in, and that's it. A Western is typically called such because of where it's "set". Now your standard western is about gunslinging cowboys and whatnot, so the concept of the "western" transcends setting and bleeds over into genre to a large degree, to the extent that you can have Western-style stories set in space (see Cowboy Bebop, Star Wars).
People hate genres, usually: romantic comedies, war movies, martial arts movies, dramas, etc. This is why when people say they hate Westerns they usually mean the genre.

But it's also reasonable to say you hate the setting in the case of the Western because while a romance or comedy can take place anywhere, Westerns take place in the "old west" (or more commonly, some desolate part of Italy pretending to be the old west in most cases - see: "spaghetti westerns").

But let's not be mistaken: it's the setting we're referring to here.

If you hate all movies set in hell, then you hate "hell" movies. But face-punching movies can take place everywhere. The only way you can aptly compare your analogy to the "Western" is if hell in and of itself was endless face-punching, to the degree that endless fancepunch hell was a desciptor for both setting AND genre.

Actually, that's exactly what I meant.
Hell is a setting.
A hell where you're constantly being being punched in the face and nothing else happens is also a setting.

Well, let's assume then the "setting" is, purely, the receiving end of a fist to the face and there is absolutely no development beyond that - which would mean facepunching is irrevocably the genre as well.
It's a terrible example, but in this instance I have to acknowledge that in this instance it may be possible to hate the "setting", but we're really stretching the boundaries of traditional cinema here with some very poor analogies because you're limiting the film to consist of nothign BUT setting. The Western setting/genre allows for considerably more variation than this. If you truly feel that seeing a Western setting is just as offputting as being endlessly facepunched regardless of all other elements within the story, not to mention the story itself, then I guess it's possible to hate the Western "setting".

But I disagree that this is the case.

Wow, I think you're mistaking me for someone who's trying to make a deep point about film making/cinema. I was just giving an example of a setting that would be pretty damn hard to like. I wasn't trying to pitch ideas for a movie.

 

[ThePantomimeThief]

Yes. I even applied this twice to my creative writing class. They had told me several times that they didn't like what I wrote, thought it was badly written and had unbelievable characters. Two of the pieces they criticised the worst were a fantasy piece (a simple conversation between two female characters) and a sci-fi piece (a sci-fi war thing, quite WWII influenced)

I decided to resubmit these two, with nothing changed except for the names, so that it seemed like they were "real life" pieces instead of sci-fi and fantasy. In the case of the sci-fi piece this meant changing character names and the names of their space craft to air craft names, and in the case of the fantasy this literally meant replacing the two character names and not telling them that it was a fantasy piece.

They said it was worthy of publishing and some of the best I'd ever written. Even the tutor said that the fantasy character piece was probably the best piece of work for that week. I hadn't changed anything, except to take it from the fantasy and put it in the "real" world.

I called them on it, and spent the rest of the course deriding everything anyone wrote unless it was fantasy or sci fi, just to show them how it felt, and how ridiculous they were.

In summation, apparently if you change the names, then people can love or hate a series based on the setting.

God, I've had this on my course too. Two of the three lecturers hated science fiction, so whenever I came up with a sci-fi idea they'd shoot it down. Take the characters out the sci-fi setting and have a completely different reaction to it. Luckily the final lecturer is incredibly open minded about things and bases works individually in terms of story telling and writing ability.

Anyway - yes, setting can have an incredible difference on how a novel/film/game feels. On a big scale like a typical setting (space opera, western, period, dystopia, modern day) it can completely alter a target audience and a general audience reaction. Even the little things can completely alter a view though. Ever read a series of books that are pretty similar? Take a series of Warhammer books for instance. Dan Abnett, although I love him, tells a pretty similar story in each of his Gaunt's Ghosts books. How to people decide which are their favourite Gaunt's Ghosts novels? Through things like what happens to their favourite characters, the occasional slight set-piece change, and the SETTING of the book. The stories of Necropolis and Only in Death are similar for instance, but a reader's opinion on the books can change depending on whether they prefer the setting of Hinzerhaus or Vervunhive.

Same goes for the Heresy novels. Each tells a similar story (bunch of stoic fighters come across something weird, some get corrupted, others don't, and there's a big tragedy where brother kills brother yada yada) but the worlds involved in the story can make or break it.

A non-40k example is the novel The Little Stranger by Sarah Waters. It's a great ghost story about a haunted house and a reputable family's decline in status. But it's set just after World War 2, and Sarah Waters has a history of writing character-based period pieces regarding sexuality. So horror fans ignored it because of the setting (in spite of it being a great horror novel) and people expecting it to be more period-based and introspective came out disappointed with a novel where the family dog mauls someone graphically.

 

[Tharwen]

My favourite setting is a futuristic dystopia.
Never got the chance to read or watch something with that setting though.

I hope that was some massive sarcasm.

No it was not.
My favourite day dreams and fantasies are set in futuristic dystopias.

Am I misunderstanding what dystopia means?

What about Half-Life, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Firefly (to some extent), and Star Wars?

Those are not the type I am looking for.

So you've found nothing that is? That sounds pretty specific.