Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
A challenge: Defend SD.net!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boris: [QB] Saxton and Wong don't hide the possibility that their conclusions will be different from what was intended, that it may not make sense to *impose* consistency on a universe. I've had this discussion with them, and Wong does seriously question whether it makes sense to apply such methods even to Star Wars (e-mail conversation). However, since they see it more as a scientific exercise than literary analysis, they don't care about the result. Then again, how deep is too deep? What is rational to me may be irrational to someone else used to analyzing TV while watching it, just as some people analyze a book while reading. With such a closer look, you find an explanation that is a lot more reasonable with respect to what you've seen onscreen or read, even if it completely perverts the original intention. George Lucas takes a peek, says, "Great, I can use this to tell people that my show makes as much sense as 2001, or that I've planned it out perfectly." He may ignore some aspects as overinterpretation and accept others. For instance, it is now official that the visible parts of blaster beams are not what does the actual damage, but rather an invisible beam travelling at c that arrives at the target beforehand. The only reason for such a convoluted explanation were a few instances where the VFX people accidentally made things explode before the blaster shot arrived. The truth is, some writers prefer to rationalize the observed flaws even if they seem ridiculous at first, rather than admit to errors, even if it changes their original intention (JMS of B5 is almost always like this, as it helps him improve the show). They may not agree with everything, but they may later make a few adjustments to communicate their intentions more clearly or simply accept that the show had a flaw and now it's better. I'm arguing that we should simply show the producers what they've given us, and let them decide which "perversions" they like and which they don't. If we restrict ourselves from analyzing something simply because of a sense that it wasn't intended, we're not being original or helping in any way. As for the sense of science fiction -- well, science fiction is an extrapolation of the present day, with all of its laws of physics and human behavior. An invisible man in science fiction ideally behaves in the exact same manner he would if he were standing right here in front of me. Were it fantasy, on the other hand, one wouldn't need to go into the how's and why's that much, but simply say "humans have evolved, accept it". Science fiction would not resist attempts to explain how it happened. Boris [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3