Re: Try Again


	/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

Re: Try Again

Posted By: Narcogen Date: 9/5/13 5:44 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Try Again (PerseusSpartacus)

: : I find your lack of faith disturbingd
: Because I have little better to do, I'll explain a little bit of why I
: dislike Star Wars.
: 1) The characters are shallow, to say the least. A better description would
: be "two-dimensional". Another good description would be
: "irritating". All in all, completely stupid.
I can completely sympathize, although conversely one might say "archetypical" or "broadly drawn" if one were in a charitable state of mind. On this point one has to draw a line in the sand between the two trilogies, though. As with most things.
: 2) It's space fantasy. I don't really like space fantasy, especially space
: magic . If it's explained in a way that's vaguely understandable (like
: Destiny), or has something interesting and different about it, then I'll
: be lenient. As for the Force, it has nothing special to it and is
: completely inexplicable.
I've heard people say this before... but I can't wrap my head around it really. There seems to be a strange sort of prejudice that favors fantasy about the past (or something that looks like the past, whether it is or not) and science fiction about the future. Star Wars, though, of course, is actually the past-- the first crawl says so. Once one accepts that the genre is fantasy and not science fiction-- and Star Wars is not SF in any way, shape, or fashion-- why does fantasy have to mean swords and sorcery? Why can't mystical wizards consort with robots and use laser swords? The fantasy genre usually adds, not subtracts, from the worlds it modifies. A fantasy world is not a world in which science does not operate (or, rather, a world where physical laws do not apply) but rather a world in which those laws are radically different, often in ways in which the characters themselves barely understand and exhibit significant superstition about.
Personally I had little problem with the Force until they tried to make it into science (which is isn't) with "midichlorians" and a hand-wave.
: 3) A lot of elements in Star Wars are inexplicable, unreasonable, or
: absolutely impossible. Sound in space? Impossible. Light moving at a speed
: that seems lower than even the speed of sound? Impossible.
Faster than light travel? Probably impossible. Just about every bit of popular SF I can think of in almost any format seriously violates the law of conservation of mass and energy. Just about every popular film set in space that I can think of violates some or all of those rules with some exceptions-- 2001, for instance, and perhaps Apollo 13.
: 4) Star Wars was one of the earliest examples of films that decided to
: replace good writing with massive special effects. Sure they were
: interesting special effects, but they aren't enough to make a movie good.
Oh, come on, you're overreaching. Lawrence Kasdan not a good writer? Come on, look down on popular entertainment if you like (or on the prequels, you'll hear no defense from me) but episodes IV and V are actually fairly well-written, at least structurally. Now, the dialogue is a different story...
: 5) The title? Absolutely atrocious. It's about a war in the stars; Star
: Wars. I could make a better title quite quickly.
Short, simple, memorable, classic.
What it is not, of course, is cryptic-- Halo, Marathon, Myth. Let's not kid ourselves, Lucas is not particularly deep and is not generally interested in mysteries. Sometimes that's a good thing, though, as right now I'm about ready to strangle Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof & company.
: All in all, I just feel like Star Wars is 'dumb' sci-fi. I would immediately
: prefer Blade Runner or 2001: A Space Odyssey to Star Wars any day. I stand
: strong in my conviction; nothing will convince me that Star Wars is of any
: merit.
Oh, absolutely! There might be those who might argue the other way but I have trouble imagining who they are. Star Wars is most decidedly not SF at all. It's fantasy that borrows some visual elements more commonly seen in SF, nothing more.
Star Trek edges a tiny bit closer towards true SF, but I don't think anybody would call it hard SF like you'd expect from Clarke, Asimov, or Niven. Clarke and Niven don't seem to get their stuff made into TV or movies that often, and the stuff of Asimov's that does reach the screen-- well, I wish it hadn't.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

Try Again *LINK* PerseusSpartacus 9/4/13 9:41 a.m.

Re: Try Again ukimalefu 9/4/13 11:14 a.m.

Re: Try Again PerseusSpartacus 9/4/13 12:05 p.m.

Re: Try Again treellama 9/5/13 4:14 a.m.

Re: Try Again PerseusSpartacus 9/5/13 9:33 a.m.

Re: Try Again treellama 9/6/13 4:38 a.m.

Re: Try Again PerseusSpartacus 9/6/13 7:50 a.m.

Re: Try Again Narcogen 9/6/13 8:17 a.m.

Re: Try Again treellama 9/6/13 9:51 a.m.

Re: Try Again PerseusSpartacus 9/6/13 12:10 p.m.

wrote everyone's favourite mythical beast *NM* patrick 9/5/13 11:33 a.m.

Re: Try Again Narcogen 9/5/13 5:44 a.m.

Re: Try Again Bob-B-Q 9/5/13 9:41 a.m.

Re: Try Again Martin 9/4/13 1:23 p.m.

Re: Try Again PerseusSpartacus 9/4/13 1:38 p.m.

Re: Try Again Martin 9/4/13 1:53 p.m.

Re: Try Again FiddlerOnARoof 9/10/13 7:47 p.m.

Re: Try Again PerseusSpartacus 9/10/13 8:05 p.m.

Re: Try Again Narcogen 9/10/13 8:42 p.m.

Re: Try Again CB557 9/11/13 9:48 a.m.

Re: Try Again CB557 9/11/13 1:27 a.m.

Re: Try Again PerseusSpartacus 9/11/13 4:24 p.m.

Re: Try Again CB557 9/12/13 12:46 a.m.

Re: Try Again PerseusSpartacus 9/12/13 10:49 a.m.

Re: Try Again CB557 9/12/13 10:55 a.m.

Re: Try Again PerseusSpartacus 9/12/13 3:27 p.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:
: I can completely sympathize, although conversely one might say : "archetypical" or "broadly drawn" if one were in a : charitable state of mind. On this point one has to draw a line in the sand : between the two trilogies, though. As with most things. : I've heard people say this before... but I can't wrap my head around it : really. There seems to be a strange sort of prejudice that favors fantasy : about the past (or something that looks like the past, whether it is or : not) and science fiction about the future. Star Wars, though, of course, : is actually the past-- the first crawl says so. Once one accepts that the : genre is fantasy and not science fiction-- and Star Wars is not SF in any : way, shape, or fashion-- why does fantasy have to mean swords and sorcery? : Why can't mystical wizards consort with robots and use laser swords? The : fantasy genre usually adds, not subtracts, from the worlds it modifies. A : fantasy world is not a world in which science does not operate (or, : rather, a world where physical laws do not apply) but rather a world in : which those laws are radically different, often in ways in which the : characters themselves barely understand and exhibit significant : superstition about. : Personally I had little problem with the Force until they tried to make it : into science (which is isn't) with "midichlorians" and a : hand-wave. : Faster than light travel? Probably impossible. Just about every bit of : popular SF I can think of in almost any format seriously violates the law : of conservation of mass and energy. Just about every popular film set in : space that I can think of violates some or all of those rules with some : exceptions-- 2001, for instance, and perhaps Apollo 13. : Oh, come on, you're overreaching. Lawrence Kasdan not a good writer? Come on, : look down on popular entertainment if you like (or on the prequels, you'll : hear no defense from me) but episodes IV and V are actually fairly : well-written, at least structurally. Now, the dialogue is a different : story... : Short, simple, memorable, classic. : What it is not, of course, is cryptic-- Halo, Marathon, Myth. Let's not kid : ourselves, Lucas is not particularly deep and is not generally interested : in mysteries. Sometimes that's a good thing, though, as right now I'm : about ready to strangle Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof & company. : Oh, absolutely! There might be those who might argue the other way but I have : trouble imagining who they are. Star Wars is most decidedly not SF at all. : It's fantasy that borrows some visual elements more commonly seen in SF, : nothing more. : Star Trek edges a tiny bit closer towards true SF, but I don't think anybody : would call it hard SF like you'd expect from Clarke, Asimov, or Niven. : Clarke and Niven don't seem to get their stuff made into TV or movies that : often, and the stuff of Asimov's that does reach the screen-- well, I wish : it hadn't.

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If necessary, enter your password below:
Password:

Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.

Try Again LINK	PerseusSpartacus	9/4/13 9:41 a.m.
Re: Try Again	ukimalefu	9/4/13 11:14 a.m.
Re: Try Again	PerseusSpartacus	9/4/13 12:05 p.m.
Re: Try Again	treellama	9/5/13 4:14 a.m.
Re: Try Again	PerseusSpartacus	9/5/13 9:33 a.m.
Re: Try Again	treellama	9/6/13 4:38 a.m.
Re: Try Again	PerseusSpartacus	9/6/13 7:50 a.m.
Re: Try Again	Narcogen	9/6/13 8:17 a.m.
Re: Try Again	treellama	9/6/13 9:51 a.m.
Re: Try Again	PerseusSpartacus	9/6/13 12:10 p.m.
wrote everyone's favourite mythical beast NM	patrick	9/5/13 11:33 a.m.
Re: Try Again	Narcogen	9/5/13 5:44 a.m.
Re: Try Again	Bob-B-Q	9/5/13 9:41 a.m.
Re: Try Again	Martin	9/4/13 1:23 p.m.
Re: Try Again	PerseusSpartacus	9/4/13 1:38 p.m.
Re: Try Again	Martin	9/4/13 1:53 p.m.
Re: Try Again	FiddlerOnARoof	9/10/13 7:47 p.m.
Re: Try Again	PerseusSpartacus	9/10/13 8:05 p.m.
Re: Try Again	Narcogen	9/10/13 8:42 p.m.
Re: Try Again	CB557	9/11/13 9:48 a.m.
Re: Try Again	CB557	9/11/13 1:27 a.m.
Re: Try Again	PerseusSpartacus	9/11/13 4:24 p.m.
Re: Try Again	CB557	9/12/13 12:46 a.m.
Re: Try Again	PerseusSpartacus	9/12/13 10:49 a.m.
Re: Try Again	CB557	9/12/13 10:55 a.m.
Re: Try Again	PerseusSpartacus	9/12/13 3:27 p.m.



	Your Name:
	Your E-Mail Address:
	Subject:
	Message: : I can completely sympathize, although conversely one might say : "archetypical" or "broadly drawn" if one were in a : charitable state of mind. On this point one has to draw a line in the sand : between the two trilogies, though. As with most things. : I've heard people say this before... but I can't wrap my head around it : really. There seems to be a strange sort of prejudice that favors fantasy : about the past (or something that looks like the past, whether it is or : not) and science fiction about the future. Star Wars, though, of course, : is actually the past-- the first crawl says so. Once one accepts that the : genre is fantasy and not science fiction-- and Star Wars is not SF in any : way, shape, or fashion-- why does fantasy have to mean swords and sorcery? : Why can't mystical wizards consort with robots and use laser swords? The : fantasy genre usually adds, not subtracts, from the worlds it modifies. A : fantasy world is not a world in which science does not operate (or, : rather, a world where physical laws do not apply) but rather a world in : which those laws are radically different, often in ways in which the : characters themselves barely understand and exhibit significant : superstition about. : Personally I had little problem with the Force until they tried to make it : into science (which is isn't) with "midichlorians" and a : hand-wave. : Faster than light travel? Probably impossible. Just about every bit of : popular SF I can think of in almost any format seriously violates the law : of conservation of mass and energy. Just about every popular film set in : space that I can think of violates some or all of those rules with some : exceptions-- 2001, for instance, and perhaps Apollo 13. : Oh, come on, you're overreaching. Lawrence Kasdan not a good writer? Come on, : look down on popular entertainment if you like (or on the prequels, you'll : hear no defense from me) but episodes IV and V are actually fairly : well-written, at least structurally. Now, the dialogue is a different : story... : Short, simple, memorable, classic. : What it is not, of course, is cryptic-- Halo, Marathon, Myth. Let's not kid : ourselves, Lucas is not particularly deep and is not generally interested : in mysteries. Sometimes that's a good thing, though, as right now I'm : about ready to strangle Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof & company. : Oh, absolutely! There might be those who might argue the other way but I have : trouble imagining who they are. Star Wars is most decidedly not SF at all. : It's fantasy that borrows some visual elements more commonly seen in SF, : nothing more. : Star Trek edges a tiny bit closer towards true SF, but I don't think anybody : would call it hard SF like you'd expect from Clarke, Asimov, or Niven. : Clarke and Niven don't seem to get their stuff made into TV or movies that : often, and the stuff of Asimov's that does reach the screen-- well, I wish : it hadn't.
	If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message, please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
	Optional Link URL:
	Optional Link Title:
	If necessary, enter your password below:
	Password: