The Irony of "Logic" we apply in Fantasy/Sci-fi Videogames/Movies/Comics/Etc.
- Thread starter SweetShark
- Start date
Yes, it is fantasy/sci-fi, and so it's fiction, and so we shouldn't question it too much. Things still have to make sense and have rules in the context of their universe, though. Have some base rules established. If you have rules and stick to them, and falling off a cliff or getting stabbed a thousand times and being fine would fit those, then fine. It's when it doesn't make sense or the magic can't explain it away that it gets to be a problem.
I have found that lately, though, with sci-fi things that try to have a basis in general relativity/actual physics, I've been finding a lot more that makes me question it like that. I mean, if you're speculating, and it's theoretically possible, or has been in sci-fi canon for years (i.e. traveling thru wormholes), then fair enough. But I was reading a book earlier that said destroying a planet would cause its star to go supernova and thought "Uh...that's not how supernovae work..." If you're going to base more off real science, then some facts should be taken into account.
Basically, just fit the context of the universe and you're fine.
I have found that lately, though, with sci-fi things that try to have a basis in general relativity/actual physics, I've been finding a lot more that makes me question it like that. I mean, if you're speculating, and it's theoretically possible, or has been in sci-fi canon for years (i.e. traveling thru wormholes), then fair enough. But I was reading a book earlier that said destroying a planet would cause its star to go supernova and thought "Uh...that's not how supernovae work..." If you're going to base more off real science, then some facts should be taken into account.
Basically, just fit the context of the universe and you're fine.
While you aren't wrong in saying the universe may have different laws of physics to prevent death from falling of a cliff. If that point holds though, the problem lies in the fact that it can then simply be applied to everything else. For example, if the person survived falling of a cliff, I might as well ask why can't that person fly since gravity and force doesn't seem to injure them anyway. Then I'll just follow up with the need for dragons in the first place.
Personally, I tend to hold a small degree of expectations when it comes to fictional worlds. Especially when context is applied. For example, if the world is set in a similar state like ours, I'm going to at least expect humans to not fly around like normal. But when a person in said world survives, lets say while relatively near an explosion, I'm not going to be too bother by it. Its hard to explain why I wouldn't be, oversimplifying it though, I suppose I treat it as a story being told. Just like how I can't believe a person could have survived the harsh conditions of World War I/II but is alive telling me of their stories, I will withold my sense of belief provided the story, events and characters themselves don't break their own laws of the universe.
Agreed 100%
Personally, I tend to hold a small degree of expectations when it comes to fictional worlds. Especially when context is applied. For example, if the world is set in a similar state like ours, I'm going to at least expect humans to not fly around like normal. But when a person in said world survives, lets say while relatively near an explosion, I'm not going to be too bother by it. Its hard to explain why I wouldn't be, oversimplifying it though, I suppose I treat it as a story being told. Just like how I can't believe a person could have survived the harsh conditions of World War I/II but is alive telling me of their stories, I will withold my sense of belief provided the story, events and characters themselves don't break their own laws of the universe.
Haha, are you referring to that wonderous scene with Deidara 'ticking' off?Lieju said:
Agreed 100%
It is up to the film/game/book etc to show (or at least hint) at the rules of that universe. To use your example of a character falling off of a cliff and not dying, if we have had no prior hint that the world operates under different rules, such as weaker gravity, then we assume that the world is the same as ours.
If we didn't then the film could be absolutely ridiculous and no-one would bat an eyelid:
Frodo gets his head cut off but he picks it up and puts it right back on - so what? Who says Hobbits aren't immortal?
Tony Stark lifts a 40-tonne without his suit - so what? Who says it was the suit doing all the lifting?
Aladdin ghosts through the side of a house, turns his hands into platinum, and punches Jafar so hard that Agrabah explodes twenty years in the past with a shower of cherry-blossoms - so what? Who says Aladdin isn't the arch-mage of logic-bending?
If we didn't then the film could be absolutely ridiculous and no-one would bat an eyelid:
Frodo gets his head cut off but he picks it up and puts it right back on - so what? Who says Hobbits aren't immortal?
Tony Stark lifts a 40-tonne without his suit - so what? Who says it was the suit doing all the lifting?
Aladdin ghosts through the side of a house, turns his hands into platinum, and punches Jafar so hard that Agrabah explodes twenty years in the past with a shower of cherry-blossoms - so what? Who says Aladdin isn't the arch-mage of logic-bending?
Huh, this thread reminds me of one time here on these forums when I said the enemy AI behaviour in the first Mass Effect was "unrealistic" and got scolded for wanting "realism" in a world of fantasy.
A lot of people have already said what needed to be said about internal consistency and believability, but I want to address the specific example of "falling off a cliff".
It's not that you specifically have to establish that falling from a great height doesn't do anything to you in this particular world, but that you've probably established a whole bunch of in-universe rules which contradict that, even unintentionally. Why is falling off a cliff safe, if characters can be hurt by weapons? Why are they not hurt, if for the entirety of the work they appear and act exactly like real-world humans? And why does the villain throw the hero off a cliff if they know it won't hurt them? Why don't they throw themselves after, since the fight is obviously not over? Why is a town built at the base on a cliff only shielded by a wall from the other directions? And so on, and so forth...
If there are dragons in your world, the culture has to reflect that. If there is magic, the culture has to reflect that ("medieval stasis" of a fantasy world is usually the quick-and-easy way to address it, despite its shortcomings). And if falling off a cliff doesn't hurt you, the characters have to behave accordingly.
On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of the "everything needs a scientific explanation" school of thought. I'm perfectly happy to let George R.R. Martin say "the seasons are long because they are" and ignore the occasional voice on the net trying to find a physical explanation/complaining about the lack of realism of the Ice and Fire-verse.
There was a brilliant essay some years ago (sadly, Polish and AFAIK never translated) in which the author first wrote in depth how a "scientifically accurate" dragon would look and behave (with the assumption that it would need to be as close as possible to the fantasy/fairy tale standard), and then from that explained why the dragons of yore would have stood no chance against medieval knights in a one-on-one duel.
A lot of people have already said what needed to be said about internal consistency and believability, but I want to address the specific example of "falling off a cliff".
It's not that you specifically have to establish that falling from a great height doesn't do anything to you in this particular world, but that you've probably established a whole bunch of in-universe rules which contradict that, even unintentionally. Why is falling off a cliff safe, if characters can be hurt by weapons? Why are they not hurt, if for the entirety of the work they appear and act exactly like real-world humans? And why does the villain throw the hero off a cliff if they know it won't hurt them? Why don't they throw themselves after, since the fight is obviously not over? Why is a town built at the base on a cliff only shielded by a wall from the other directions? And so on, and so forth...
If there are dragons in your world, the culture has to reflect that. If there is magic, the culture has to reflect that ("medieval stasis" of a fantasy world is usually the quick-and-easy way to address it, despite its shortcomings). And if falling off a cliff doesn't hurt you, the characters have to behave accordingly.
On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of the "everything needs a scientific explanation" school of thought. I'm perfectly happy to let George R.R. Martin say "the seasons are long because they are" and ignore the occasional voice on the net trying to find a physical explanation/complaining about the lack of realism of the Ice and Fire-verse.
There was a brilliant essay some years ago (sadly, Polish and AFAIK never translated) in which the author first wrote in depth how a "scientifically accurate" dragon would look and behave (with the assumption that it would need to be as close as possible to the fantasy/fairy tale standard), and then from that explained why the dragons of yore would have stood no chance against medieval knights in a one-on-one duel.
magic is a hidden arcane art, it's ways are mysterious by default and it has limits usually you can't just go and re order the universe at will, because well that isn't very compelling.
your hero being stabbed 1000, times is just stupid they'd die from loss of blood.. so if people accept this then yeah that's definite suspension of disbelief.. i guess it's not 'impossible' in the mathematical sense, but little actually is..
falling towards a rock at near supersonic speeds..
if you're not superman or goku you have no right to survive this, the forces involved will crush every structure of your body instantly and leave a red smear on the ground.
( hell, this is how the avengers decided to try and kill the hulk.. the freki'n hulk!!!!.. )
nobody can survive a terminal velocity jump onto the ground, the forces are absolutely astronomical.
for the average skydiver terminal velocity ( free fall, no aero ) is anywhere from 120 mph to 200 mph depending how aerodynamic you are which just isn't survivable, by anything... you're literally burst apart by pressure on the cellular level that's how devastating that impact is. even falling into water is deadly, just due to the shock it imparts on you.
most people can figure this out instinctively, and it just makes the scene totally unbelieveable!
it's mostly just how people interpret what they see, because media is all about people.
your hero being stabbed 1000, times is just stupid they'd die from loss of blood.. so if people accept this then yeah that's definite suspension of disbelief.. i guess it's not 'impossible' in the mathematical sense, but little actually is..
falling towards a rock at near supersonic speeds..
if you're not superman or goku you have no right to survive this, the forces involved will crush every structure of your body instantly and leave a red smear on the ground.
( hell, this is how the avengers decided to try and kill the hulk.. the freki'n hulk!!!!.. )
nobody can survive a terminal velocity jump onto the ground, the forces are absolutely astronomical.
for the average skydiver terminal velocity ( free fall, no aero ) is anywhere from 120 mph to 200 mph depending how aerodynamic you are which just isn't survivable, by anything... you're literally burst apart by pressure on the cellular level that's how devastating that impact is. even falling into water is deadly, just due to the shock it imparts on you.
most people can figure this out instinctively, and it just makes the scene totally unbelieveable!
it's mostly just how people interpret what they see, because media is all about people.
Well there was a TV series of some sort that i forgot the name off. I can't remember what it was called. It might of been twillight zone, tales of the crypt or the outer limits. Or it might been something else. I don't know.
Anyway the skit was there are some D&D roleplayers complaining. They were teenagers i think. They wish they could live out their roleplay fantasy realm since it's better in the fantasy world than real world. They'll be able to slay monsters and stuff. They ***** on and on about this. Well someone appears. Forgot who, i'll just call him Mr Genie.
Well Mr Genie teleports them saying something along there lines are, here you are you got your wish. The teenagers are scared shitless. They start to complain and want to go home. Genie refuses, stating this is what you wanted, gives them armour and a sword and tells them to go forth. Well they do, Ogre appears, they get killed.
Hehehe, this is what i think about applying real world logic to fantasy worlds. They don't mix. There is no point to questioning fantasy logic, since you as the reader/watcher have no control over it. Fantasy logic is only as good as the writer. It's nice if there is some consistency in the fantasy world with the mechanics of that universe working without any plot holes and stuff. So i go with the flow, there is no point in questioning it, i only question plot holes and characters acting stupid.
Edit: if someone can tell me the name of the series and episode, i would be very grateful, since right now, i'm drawing blanks.
Anyway the skit was there are some D&D roleplayers complaining. They were teenagers i think. They wish they could live out their roleplay fantasy realm since it's better in the fantasy world than real world. They'll be able to slay monsters and stuff. They ***** on and on about this. Well someone appears. Forgot who, i'll just call him Mr Genie.
Well Mr Genie teleports them saying something along there lines are, here you are you got your wish. The teenagers are scared shitless. They start to complain and want to go home. Genie refuses, stating this is what you wanted, gives them armour and a sword and tells them to go forth. Well they do, Ogre appears, they get killed.
Hehehe, this is what i think about applying real world logic to fantasy worlds. They don't mix. There is no point to questioning fantasy logic, since you as the reader/watcher have no control over it. Fantasy logic is only as good as the writer. It's nice if there is some consistency in the fantasy world with the mechanics of that universe working without any plot holes and stuff. So i go with the flow, there is no point in questioning it, i only question plot holes and characters acting stupid.
Edit: if someone can tell me the name of the series and episode, i would be very grateful, since right now, i'm drawing blanks.
It becuase the said "magic" isn't really used in the said other media. E.g. While I know Superman is vulnerable to magic but there is nowhere explain that he used "magic" to fly. In another word, "magic" is the explaination for the stuff used in those fantasy setting while other has "nothing" as a explantion for the question logic that happened in it.
Also technically I think magic is pretty much can do anything (well depend on that media limited used on it) which we just buy it. I mean as kid, most of us belived that the magican did saw a person in half and was still alived or how that magican pull a rabbit out of his/ her hat like out of thin air.
Also technically I think magic is pretty much can do anything (well depend on that media limited used on it) which we just buy it. I mean as kid, most of us belived that the magican did saw a person in half and was still alived or how that magican pull a rabbit out of his/ her hat like out of thin air.
It's the job of the Author to creat a set of rules for this fantasy world and convey these to the audience so they can properly understand the significance of the events on screen, not to just make it up as they go along.
It depends what logic we are talking about.
If we're talking physics. Then you can pull some liberties for the sake of the story, unless the physics are EXPLICITLY wrong or just stupid. The Dark Knight Rises (which has MANY other problems) is one such movie.
http://www.fusionenergyleague.org/index.php/blog/article/batman_fusion_redemption#flub
Now, the thing is. For any movie, I could forgive Hollywood physics and Hollywood hacking as long as the movie is at least fun in other ways without the problems interfering with the enjoyment of the movie, they are still stupid concepts though. I can forgive certain plot-holes if they are easily explainable.
tl;dr When you like something, the logic is easier to forgive. When you don't, it's harder to forgive.
For instance
When you move into character logic, things get a bit more iffy. I've seen people critics (one on this website) criticize the Amazing Spider-Man for "plot hole and contrivances" and then praise the Avengers which as arguabley equal amount of problems (I personally though both films were flawed but enjoyable). That's where it becomes more selective if anything.
If we're talking physics. Then you can pull some liberties for the sake of the story, unless the physics are EXPLICITLY wrong or just stupid. The Dark Knight Rises (which has MANY other problems) is one such movie.
http://www.fusionenergyleague.org/index.php/blog/article/batman_fusion_redemption#flub
Now, the thing is. For any movie, I could forgive Hollywood physics and Hollywood hacking as long as the movie is at least fun in other ways without the problems interfering with the enjoyment of the movie, they are still stupid concepts though. I can forgive certain plot-holes if they are easily explainable.
tl;dr When you like something, the logic is easier to forgive. When you don't, it's harder to forgive.
For instance
When you move into character logic, things get a bit more iffy. I've seen people critics (one on this website) criticize the Amazing Spider-Man for "plot hole and contrivances" and then praise the Avengers which as arguabley equal amount of problems (I personally though both films were flawed but enjoyable). That's where it becomes more selective if anything.
The important thing is that what happens is consistent with the universe's internal logic. Example: In Star Trek, I don't care that their concept for a matter/energy transporter device is rather ridiculous given our real-world understanding of physics, but I do care when it does work in a situation that either doesn't make sense given the implied rules of the Star Trek universe or straight-up does something that characters specifically said it couldn't do in an earlier episode simply for the sake of the plot. See also: Star Trek time travel, whose rules they've changed about a billion times as the plot demands (in some episodes, there's only one timeline that gets changed, in the JJ Abrams movies it creates an entirely different timeline that co-exists alongside the original franchise timeline in another universe for some reason).
No, the issue is when they are inconsistent within their own in-universe rules. THAT is when most of us tend to nerd-rage on them. If you establish that these people are tough enough, and strong enough to get hit by a giant, mechanized robot, and flung 100 yards into a brick wall, with no negative repurcussions beyond a rumpled wardrobe and maybe a cut cheek, fine. But then don't show me a scene 1 hour later where they fall a similar distance (or possibly shorter) and are suddenly incapable of walking, broke half their ribs, and are on the verge of passing out. That is inconsistent and annoying. Don't establish that these heroes are capable of cleaving buildings in half with a sword, and then show me them useless banging their hands on a doorframe while crying, as if they can't get through it. Don't try and convince me that the protagonist is a caring, peace loving person (by him saying these are the things he believes), and then show him acting in ways directly in contrast to those stated virtues. He can't show up after killing 200 soldiers of the government and then say "hey! I'm just a regular guy, I'm not your enemy!!" Um...no...sorry the pile of corpses says otherwise pal.SweetShark said:
Those are the kind of things that make me rage at the fantasy/scifi genres. I don't have a problem with them coming up with universe laws that aren't realistic, ***as long as they are consistent with those rules across the board*** When aspects of the universe are ignored, for no reason other than plot convenience, then you are insulting your audience.
I think the thing is that everything is generally considered to work the same as real life, unless the writer says otherwise. Obviously things we don't have in real life are exempt from this even if no explanation is given, there's nothing to directly compare it to in order to say it breaks logic. So in one world a Dragon might be magic and in another Dragons might be aliens of science, and either way it probably wouldn't be questioned. Meanwhile if you fell off a cliff, the writer should establish some reason as to why the character can survive the landing (ala Dr.Mcninja) rather than just having them survive for no reason (ala FF13). Of course it's not always necessary to explicitly explain everything like that, for instance in DBZ we might see a character use their ki to tank an exorbitant amount of damage, so if we then saw them fall from orbit we could just assume he could do something similar to survive. Although there are other things that might be left more up in the air, like if a character flys into space and is fine with no direct explanation, some people might assume that you could ki to provide yourself with the air and heat needed to survive, but others might question it since it's a notably different way of using an already established element of the show. Even if the actual explanation is eventually given to be ki, it is important to establish that ki could do that rather than just assuming the audience will figure out that you can use ki that way without any evidence other than they just did.
A story with no rules, logic, or internal consistency of any sort makes it extremely difficult to get caught up in or care about what's going on. If everything in the story is completely arbitrary, there's no tension.
Why should I care that the hero is in a sword fight if being stabbed has as great a chance of magically solving the plot as it does killing him? Why should I care if the hero's love interest dies if I can't expect normal human emotions and behavior out of characters? Maybe he'll be happy and throw a party!
If I can't apply some sort of rules to a fictional universe then I can't intellectually engage with it. I can't turn off that part of my brain that tells me that it isn't real and it doesn't actually matter. It isn't a story; it's just a sequence of words or images that I'm seeing.
Why should I care that the hero is in a sword fight if being stabbed has as great a chance of magically solving the plot as it does killing him? Why should I care if the hero's love interest dies if I can't expect normal human emotions and behavior out of characters? Maybe he'll be happy and throw a party!
If I can't apply some sort of rules to a fictional universe then I can't intellectually engage with it. I can't turn off that part of my brain that tells me that it isn't real and it doesn't actually matter. It isn't a story; it's just a sequence of words or images that I'm seeing.
On Fantasy world I can agree but I disagree that we can't apply logic to Sci fi genre media as Sci fi is Science and Fiction so there needs to be a certain logic behind stuff working. Having stuff like unobatnium that allows say a dyson sphere to be made is fine but having a power source out of nowhere isn't. As long as nothing goes outside the rules of the established fiction.