DominicCobb

Anchorhead said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:
Absolutely baffles me. Technology is of exactly zero importance in Star Wars. It’s there, that’s it. The films are not about that at all. They are modern myths, and very clearly so. You cannot with a straight face tell me that Star Wars is more similar to Shelly and Verne than to Tolkein and Arthurian legends.

I disagree with this statement. The original Star Wars trilogy was very much about technology. In fact the original Star Wars can be seen as a critique of the modern world, where technology supersedes spirituality punctuated by Motti´s remark “This space station is now the ultimate power in the universe!” This to me is one of the more interesting aspects of the first movie, namely that the Jedi and even Darth Vader himself are seen as relics of the past in a galaxy dominated by technology.

I’m not at all speaking for Dominic, so he should correct me if I’m off. I think he’s noting that technology doesn’t drive the story in-universe. Luke has a speeder because that’s how you get around, vaporators are how you get water, droids are the labor pool, space ships are how you travel from planet to planet, etc.

I had that in my original response as well, before I trimmed it. Technology, far superior to ours, is the world in which they live. The story at its roots is; old man enlists the help of a farm boy to go rescue the princess and fight the bad guys.

That story can be told in just about any timeline or setting.

Yup

I agree that it’s tricky once you’ve swapped Luke out of the second graph. Thing is you really do need to emphasize that Vader is looking for Luke specifically.

I feel like people are missing the fact that Rey is almost certainly not a slave in present day TFA.

yotsuya said:

DominicCobb said:

SilverWook said:

The asteroid belt in our own solar system was of concern with early unmanned probes until it’s actual composition was better known.
https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/can-you-fly-through-the-asteroid-belt-unharmed/
No giant slugs of course.

“You’re not actually going into an asteroid field,” “Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1,” the implication in both being that going through any asteroid field is incredibly dangerous.

Look, I don’t care if in reality some asteroid fields are dangerous or not. Doesn’t matter to me, and it doesn’t matter to the movies I watch, clearly. That’s the point. In Star Wars, they don’t do a scan or some shit of this particular asteroid field to see how dangerous it is, they just barge right in, with it being dangerous as a given. Even Threepio’s numbers are just complete random bullshit, done to establish the threat in a way that’s true to his character (and, of course, Han’s).

And how many times do they do the exact same thing in Star Trek?

Again, you’re looking at it the wrong way. Saying they do the same thing in Star Trek doesn’t say anything but about Star Trek. Han and Leia fall in love in Empire Strikes Back, many characters fall in love in Gone with the Wind, does that mean that Star Wars is actually a period romance?

yotsuya said:

DominicCobb said:

yotsuya said:

And the difference between science fiction and fantasy can be summed up by Arthur C. Clarke himself. Any technology sufficiently advanced will appear a magic. Soft science fiction leans toward assuming we will find those advances and tries to not explain them very clearly (often not explaining typical tropes at all). When the tech is low and you still have magic, that is when you have fantasy. That is the line between science fiction and fantasy. If you provide tech to do the things that seem magic or provide even a quasi scientific explanation for it, it is science fiction. If there is some mystical source of the power - some deity usually - then you have fantasy.

Even by your arbitrary definition, Star Wars is still fantasy. The only time in the films provide a “quasi scientific explanation” for the force is TPM, and it’s no surprise that that’s one of the things people hate the most about that film.

You can split hairs any way you like, but the fact of the matter is simple. Star Wars does not care about how tech works. It never has. How does a lightsaber work? Oh, a crystal of course. A fucking magic crystal. The laws of space physics are completely irrelevant. It’s not just ‘sound in space,’ it’s how the ships move, it’s how an asteroid field is dangerous to traverse when in reality it never would be, it’s how long it takes to get from place to place, and yes, it’s whether or not you can see a beam shoot across the galaxy. When a new piece of tech arrives in the Star Wars universe, checking to see if it fits into how things work in reality is the exact wrong way to do it. Whether you think it’s fantasy or not (it is), you cannot disagree that is is a significantly fantastical world, where tech and physics follow a fundamentally fantastical set of rules.

Ben called it an energy field. Try finding that term in fantasy. That is an SF quasi scientific description.

An “energy field” is not a “quasi scientific” description, it is a psuedoscience description, at best. Energy field, as it’s used here, is a phrase used almost exclusively by spiritualists and otherwise New Age-y kind of people.

Most space operas don’t care how things work. Most things just work. Read some of the classic space operas. Does Isaac Asimov ever explain how a force field belt can have an atomic power unit the size of an almond? No. Does he explain how the force field works? How it covers the body while not extending to other things? No. That is space opera - a long standing and respected genre of science fiction, not fantasy. You are looking at this through the eyes of hard fantasy. For many of those writers/readers/fans, most things that are called science fiction are fantasy, but theirs is the minority opinion. Fantasy doesn’t claim it, science fiction does. And in truth, both are part of the larger speculative fiction genre and share many of the same awards. Both came from the old romance adventures, such as Ivanhoe. Science fiction just introduced science to the mix and was pioneered by many as far back as Cyrano de Bergerac, then Mary Shelly, and most famously Jules Verne - considered the father of modern science fiction. Fantasy was born out of the Arthurian legends and then exploded after The Hobbit. But the big difference is science and technology vs. magic and myth. Star Wars falls on the science and technology side and is not claimed by the fantasy side at all. Where is the magic? If you say the Force and the Jedi, you aren’t up on what cuts it as magic. As early as 1977, Lucas had Ben explain it away. Yoda further explained it away. As simple as that may see, that is more than Tolkien ever did. Magic needs no source or if it does, it has a source that science can’t explain. But the distinction between science fiction and fantasy is magic vs. science and there is way too much science in Star Wars for it to be fantasy. It isn’t hard fantasy by any stretch, but it is soft fantasy - specifically space opera.

Well it’d be very hard to argue that Star Wars isn’t “space opera,” I’ll give you that. But just because it fits that category well doesn’t simply mean that it’s more sci-fi than fantasy. I don’t think genre definitions are so rigid as that. Amazon’s categories aren’t the end-all be-all.

Saying the Force is not magic because it is given an explanation just seems ridiculous to me. The explanations are entirely mystical and have nothing to do with science. You don’t nee to explain why Gandalf can do shit with his staff, of course. But when the Force is a power that the protagonist needs to learn, obviously there’ll be some explaining. The One Ring is not without explanation. Many of the magic used in Harry Potter is not without explanation either. Doesn’t make them scientific.

How you can say this

But the big difference is science and technology vs. magic and myth.

And then turn around and say this

Star Wars falls on the science and technology side and is not claimed by the fantasy side at all.

Absolutely baffles me. Technology is of exactly zero importance in Star Wars. It’s there, that’s it. The films are not about that at all. They are modern myths, and very clearly so. You cannot with a straight face tell me that Star Wars is more similar to Shelly and Verne than to Tolkein and Arthurian legends.

The real point is that science fantasy isn’t a modern genre term. It is not in use at all. It is championed by some hard science fiction people, but most of the science fiction publishers and writers put out soft science fiction that is very similar to Star Wars. Some people have called out Star Trek as science fiction while saying Star Wars is science fantasy. Sorry, but they are the same. While the stories they tell have some differences, both rely on the same tropes. Sound in space, telepathy, telekinesis, instantaneous intergalactic communication, faster than light travel, artificial gravity. energy weapons with visible beams, people shooting lightning out of their hands, people controlling other people, robots, questionable science (at times Star Trek has been better, but when they aren’t they are worse than Star Wars). In fact, Star Trek features beings who could beat any Jedi or Sith with little effort. Some of the beings featured on the original and next gen were so powerful they really couldn’t be beat. Not by force anyway. So there is no more magic in Star Wars than there is in Star Trek. Are they both science fantasy? Well, the proper genre term is space opera. Has been for 70 years. (Space Opera - a novel, movie, or television program set in outer space, typically of a simplistic and melodramatic nature.)

You’re literally just describing things that happen to be in Star Wars, but none of those things are what the film is about. Sure, Star Wars contains elements that are also contained in many sci-fi stories. But it also has elements of the western genre, the swashbuckling genre, and the war genre (to name a few). But what is the story really, at the end of the day, about? Is it about gunslingers? Is it about pirates? Is it about soldiers? Is it about robots and aliens? Fuck no. It’s a hero’s journey; it’s an epic battle of good vs. evil. It’s a fairy tale. That it includes space ships doesn’t change that fact a bit.

SilverWook said:

The asteroid belt in our own solar system was of concern with early unmanned probes until it’s actual composition was better known.
https://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/can-you-fly-through-the-asteroid-belt-unharmed/
No giant slugs of course.

“You’re not actually going into an asteroid field,” “Sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1,” the implication in both being that going through any asteroid field is incredibly dangerous.

Look, I don’t care if in reality some asteroid fields are dangerous or not. Doesn’t matter to me, and it doesn’t matter to the movies I watch, clearly. That’s the point. In Star Wars, they don’t do a scan or some shit of this particular asteroid field to see how dangerous it is, they just barge right in, with it being dangerous as a given. Even Threepio’s numbers are just complete random bullshit, done to establish the threat in a way that’s true to his character (and, of course, Han’s).

yotsuya said:

And the difference between science fiction and fantasy can be summed up by Arthur C. Clarke himself. Any technology sufficiently advanced will appear a magic. Soft science fiction leans toward assuming we will find those advances and tries to not explain them very clearly (often not explaining typical tropes at all). When the tech is low and you still have magic, that is when you have fantasy. That is the line between science fiction and fantasy. If you provide tech to do the things that seem magic or provide even a quasi scientific explanation for it, it is science fiction. If there is some mystical source of the power - some deity usually - then you have fantasy.

Even by your arbitrary definition, Star Wars is still fantasy. The only time in the films provide a “quasi scientific explanation” for the force is TPM, and it’s no surprise that that’s one of the things people hate the most about that film.

And since we’re quoting Clarke:

“Science Fiction is something that could happen – but usually you wouldn’t want it to. Fantasy is something that couldn’t happen, though often you only wish that it could.”

You can split hairs any way you like, but the fact of the matter is simple. Star Wars does not care about how tech works. It never has. How does a lightsaber work? Oh, a crystal of course. A fucking magic crystal. The laws of space physics are completely irrelevant. It’s not just ‘sound in space,’ it’s how the ships move, it’s how an asteroid field is dangerous to traverse when in reality it never would be, it’s how long it takes to get from place to place, and yes, it’s whether or not you can see a beam shoot across the galaxy. When a new piece of tech arrives in the Star Wars universe, checking to see if it fits into how things work in reality is the exact wrong way to do it. Whether you think it’s fantasy or not (it is), you cannot disagree that is is a significantly fantastical world, where tech and physics follow a fundamentally fantastical set of rules.

yotsuya said:

snooker said:

It’s not sci fi! Just because it shares elements of the genre doesn’t mean it’s sci fi!

I’d suggest moving this argument to a different thread.

Starting it elsewhere might be good, but if you do, I challenge you to name one aspect of Star Wars that can’t be found in something clearly acknowledged as science fiction. Find one thing. I’ve read science ficton that goes back to the 30’s and you can’t do it because everything Lucas did has been done before in science fiction. Everything.

I don’t think you’re looking at it the right way at all. We’re talking about a genre here. A genre is more than just a collection of components that are found in the story, it’s how the story is told.

Not to mention, if I said “look at Braveheart and tell me one thing it does that can’t be found in Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings,” that doesn’t make Braveheart a fantasy film. There’s a lot of things that sci-fi does that SW doesn’t.

RogueLeader said:

@Dom

I appreciate your perspective about the “First Order spies” angle, I feel I kept bugging Nev about how that angle was perfect and should use it for his crawl, but I’ve been reading different opinions and have slowly been coming to a similar conclusion as you. And I think Nev said the same thing to me. "If the Republic has already been compromised, is it already a lost cause?” is another point I’ve heard. While it has been compromised in canon, maybe it wouldn’t be best to emphasize that angle.

And like you said, it is a little bit truer to that theme in the new films.

"With the New Republic unwilling to start another war, General Leia Organa mobilizes a private/covert Resistance to counter the rise of this growing Imperial remnant.”

Another reason I like this phrase is that allows you add a little extra info that the First Order is an Imperial Remnant, if the first paragraph is too wordy and felt you need to cut/move a bit of FO information.

So, you have could have a first paragraph like,
"Luke Skywalker has vanished. The mysterious FIRST ORDER has emerged from uncharted space and will not rest until Skywalker, the last Jedi, has been destroyed.” or sort a variation of Nev’s, “In his absence, the mysterious FIRST ORDER has emerged from desolate space with ambitions to restore their fallen Empire.”

Yeah I feel like this is more on the right track.

To TLJ

Intersting perspective. I don’t necessarily hate, but I am surprised how highly you think of it! Also curious what your issues are with the Empire crawl. I aways felt that it should have said “led by Princess Leia” rather than “led by Luke Skywalker” but didn’t really have any problems outside of that.

I’m surprised by how much I like it too. With TFA, I felt like I had issues with the crawl the moment I was first reading it. I’ve seen TLJ many times now, and reread the crawl in isolation - with an eye towards changes - and have mostly struggled to come up with much wrong. Part of this is I think inherent to the movies themselves. TFA is set 30 years after ROTJ, and at least a whole other trilogy worth of plot has happened in between. Whereas TLJ picks up right after TFA, so any plot-based set-up is incredibly minimal, which allows it to really focus in on what matters to the film.

That’s one of my issues with ESB’s crawl, yes. That line makes it seem like we’re preparing for a more basic SF/F sequel, ‘oh our hero saved the day so he is leading all the good guys!’ Besides that, my bigger problem is the final paragraph, which, and I don’t know how to describe this accurately, just sort of leaves you hanging. Doesn’t feel a conclusive way to end the crawl, if that makes sense.

The evil lord Darth Vader, obsessed with finding young Skywalker, has dispatched thousands of remote probes into the far reaches of space…

I’ve been trying to think of a way to rewrite this, but basically I’d rather it ended with “far reaches of space to find young Skywalker…” or something along those lines. Don’t know how to describe my issue here, I’m no grammatist.

littlev87 said:

When jango fett walks, you should make it sound like he is wearing cowboy spurs. I feel like someone has done this before or with boba fett. When you said spurs on your last post, it made me think of it.

Yes it was done before with Boba Fett, in 1980.

ChainsawAsh said:

Yeah, Star Wars has always been fantasy in what’s traditionally a sci-fi setting. Large chunks of the EU in the 90s-00s were more sci-fi oriented and I think that may have skewed some people’s perceptions of the franchise.

This exactly. One of the main reasons I find portions of the EU hard to get into.

@RogueLeader, I’ve too been wracking my brain with the best way to write a TFA crawl. There’s so much info to convey, and so little space. The theatrical crawl is an absolute mess, clearly JJ just trying to simplify everything for general audiences. I agree that you really have to whittle everything down to the most essential elements, i.e. you can live without mentioning the SKB I think.

Personally I don’t think that the “First Order spies” angle is the right way to go at it. The film supports this framing, but I don’t think the framing supports the film. I much prefer getting across the idea of New Republic complacency in the face of the new threat. It jives with what the film and the ST in general is actually about - despite thinking that the light had won forever at the end of ROTJ, the dark side is back; in the face of this you can ignore the threat completely and go about your life, you can retreat in a fit of nihilistic desperation, or you can stand up and fight, even if you know it’s a fight that may never end. To that end, this is my favorite of your options “With the New Republic unwilling to start another war, General Leia Organa mobilizes a private/covert Resistance to counter the rise of this growing Imperial remnant.” I have some mockups of a potential crawl that I’ll have to post later.

Now for TLJ, I’m somewhat of the opinion that TLJ’s crawl is practically perfect, and probably the best crawl since the original film (yes, better than Empire, which isn’t without flaws). That people interpret “The First Order reigns” to mean that they already have full control of the galaxy is pretty weird to me. First of all, “reigns” is not a word with only one rigid meaning, and second, the sentence that comes immediately after clarifies: “Having decimated the peaceful Republic, Supreme Leader Snoke now deploys his merciless legions to seize military control of the galaxy.” In my mind that sets up the First Order’s side of it pretty well, which does well to set the tone for a dire situation for the galaxy and Resistance, by emphasizing the FO’s growing power and the massive threat they pose… even though I do like your reworking in its own way (I will say I think saying ‘both the First Order and Resistance have been decimated’ is irrelevant and distracting).

It’s when we get to the Resistance’s side of things that I can see either for or against changing. On the one hand, I think pretty much all the information you need is there, with the last two graphs of the crawl setting up what the movie is actually about far better than most of the saga’s other crawls. I appreciate the brevity and economy of word usage here, but I do honestly wonder… would it be better to be slightly more specific? I’m thinking about the the second paragraph where it talks about Leia seeking Luke to restore the “spark.” As is, it’s vague who he’d actually be restoring the spark for. So maybe the room for improvement here would be to clarify that there are Republic remnants in the galaxy that are sympathetic to the Resistance, but skeptical this is a battle they can win. I’ll have to think on it, but there’s got to be a way to succinctly say that the Resistance has allies that are too afraid to fight, and just need a little push.

Maybe something like this?

With the remaining Republic forces fearful to face this rising tyranny, only General Leia Organa’s band of RESISTANCE fighters stand to fight, certain that Jedi Master Luke Skywalker will return and restore a spark of hope to the cause.

Or this?

Only General Leia Organa’s band of RESISTANCE fighters stand against the rising tyranny, certain that Jedi Master Luke Skywalker will return and restore a spark of hope for the remaining Republic forces too fearful to join the fight.

NeverarGreat said:

RogueLeader said:

That’s a good point. You’re basically saying that even if Starkiller Base was better set up, it still doesn’t address the fact that it barely has any relevance to the characters. So by repositioning the destruction, you could have it tie in more to the characters’ motivation.

I would definitely be interested in seeing that. That could work, but on the other hand maybe it is disconnected to “the story we care about”, as JJ calls it in the TFA commentary, because they didn’t want Death Star 3.0 to be very integral to the fresh part of the story, if that makes sense. Like, if you can’t get those two thing being connected to work, then they’re better off being separated.

I haven’t actually heard the commentary, probably should do that.

But it sounds like JJ couldn’t think of anything better than a Death Star 3.0 while also realizing how boring that would be and simultaneously de-emphasizing its importance. Like you said, we’d been better off without it. Would it have been so hard for him to include a ‘boring’ exposition scene where we learn what’s happening in the galaxy? That’s what this movie really needs. Just one, anywhere.

I would argue that a scene that explains what’s happening in the galaxy is only really “needed” for the more serious fans. It would be at least equally irrelevant to the story at hand as the destruction of Hosnian Prime (if not quite a bit more so).

To be clear though, I agree they really should have included such a scene. It could (if done right) had added a lot and cleared up fan confusion.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Why not title it something to the effect of A.C.A.B. then?

A.C.O.A.P.B. isn’t close enough?

moviefreakedmind said:

I’m curious to see it, but it’s too long and I dread it. As someone who loves film and film history though, I feel compelled to see it. As for strives being inevitable, you could say that about anything. “Someone else would’ve done it eventually.” Maybe, but we don’t live in that timeline.

I’m not saying we should ignore the film entirely and rewrite history without it. Just saying in this particular case, when it comes to my enjoyment of the film, I don’t care. The movie sucks. Many of the things it revolutionized were in regards to methods of storytelling that had already long existed in other mediums, which is what makes them in my mind inevitable. I can appreciate its place in history without appreciating the film itself.

If you’re really curious because of its stature, I’m not going to stop you (why do you think I watched it in the first place?). But I’ll just warn you your dread is well placed.

SKB can be a storytelling problem without it being a logic problem. I think saying “it’s fantasy” is a totally fair defense for the technical “issues.” Doesn’t necessarily excuse its contrived placement in the story, because they’re two separate things.

SilverWook said:

History seldom remembers the second person to innovate though.

The segment I saw of it back in college was slow and plodding.

Yup. I much prefer Introlerance, which is still problematic, but far more watchable.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jeebus said:

Addendum: It’s also important to note that the people punching Nazis usually aren’t very good judges of who is and isn’t a Nazi. Personally, I’d rather have 100 Nazis go free than have 1 innocent man get punched, but that’s just me.

I also agree with this. That’s my thinking behind police too. I’d rather 100 guilty suspects go free than have 1 innocent one murdered or falsely imprisoned.

This is more reasonable, but I really can’t agree with Jeebus’s analogy. Getting punched isn’t that big a deal. I’d let myself get punched if it meant 100 guilty Nazis wouldn’t go free.

As to Collipso’s point, it’s one thing to be personally happy about it happening, and another thing to actually support happening it in the broader sense. I don’t think violence is a good or terribly helpful option, but on a personal level I can’t say I dislike it when a hateful sack of shit gets socked.

moviefreakedmind said:

Why’d you watch it twice?

Watched it once on my own. Then I had to watch it in class. Wouldn’t have watched it the first time if I knew I’d have no choice but to watch it the second time.

Isn’t it pioneering in its filmmaking?

Yeah, but… it’s still awful.

Also I’d argue that the strives it made were inevitable.

moviefreakedmind said:

Have you seen it?

Yes. Twice. It’s the worst.

moviefreakedmind said:

Has anyone ever seen Birth of a Nation? I’ve read that it’s one of the first ever blockbuster epic films, but I know it’s also one of the most racist movies ever and it glorifies the KKK and the Confederacy so I don’t think I care to see it, but I’m curious if anyone else has.

It’s the worst.

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

At this point the only thing in last place that would surprise me is either the original or ESB.

funny how the post right after this one has the original in last place. 😛

Isn’t that crazy? Must be a total coincidence. No way that was on purpose.

Anakin Starkiller said:

There is no truly bad SW movie.

AOTC trying it’s hardest to be though.

I too like all the Star Wars movies. Honestly I’d wager most fans do.

At this point the only thing in last place that would surprise me is either the original or ESB.