Star Wars Universe Discussion [Split Topic]

What can I say? It doesn't fit above, put it here. Also the location of board rules/info.
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 18:48
Contact:

Star Wars Universe Discussion [Split Topic]

Post by Micamo » Sun 07 Sep 2014, 12:11

XXXVII wrote:Also *adjusts glasses* a Jedi is not faster than light. He is, instead, faster than the human wielding the gun and is possessed of a sixth sense to know where and when the shots will strike before they are fired thus he places his lightsaber in the way. Were a Jedi faster than light, he'd be unbeatable since he could simply kill an entire army before you could even see him.
***NERD WARNING***

Actually in the Expanded Universe things get really silly: Sufficiently powerful Jedi can use The Force to do whatever the writer of the current story wants them to be able to do, up to and including blowing up planets with a thought. I'm far from an expert in the EU, but I wouldn't be surprised if "Force Teleport" were a power a Jedi actually had at some point.
Edit: Modicone: Split from Technology in conworlds
My pronouns are <xie> [ʒiː] / <xer> [ʒɚ]

My shitty twitter
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1468
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: Technology in conworlds

Post by Salmoneus » Sun 07 Sep 2014, 12:16

Micamo wrote:
Squall wrote:In many cases the existence of technology, such as telephone, camera, fast transportation (airplanes) and internet, may make the world boring for stories. Fast transportation prevents dangerous journeys. Telephone allows one to call for help or tell the localization. Cameras make thefts difficult. If the weapons are so advanced, non-nuclear wars will not be possible.
This is a misconception: Technologies close off some story possiblities, but open others. Try to tell a story about hackers without the internet, or about fighter pilots without airplanes, or about a bomb threat with no reliable explosives.
I think that's a bit of a miconception. Technology by its very nature makes things easier in general - that's what it's for. It may open up a few new difficulties, but they're smaller and fewer than the difficulties it does away with. And most of those new difficulties:
a) are due to new technologies and go away later on - fighter planes were more interesting when they were low-tech than when they're fully automated, for instance
b) aren't really new stories, but just echoes of old ones. Fighter ace stories are just warrior-elite stories in new clothes. I'll give you bomb threats as a new story, sure, but a rare example of one (and one that, again, becomes less of a story as technology improves)
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 18:48
Contact:

Re: Technology in conworlds

Post by Micamo » Sun 07 Sep 2014, 12:43

Salmoneus wrote:I think that's a bit of a miconception. Technology by its very nature makes things easier in general - that's what it's for. It may open up a few new difficulties, but they're smaller and fewer than the difficulties it does away with.
"Easier in general" is not the relevant parameter here: What matters is, does the presence of this technology trivialize this plot point to the extent that it deflates the tension? And if we want to use that kind of plot point in a setting with the technology anyway, how many hoops do we have to jump through to explain why the tech doesn't apply in this particular case and thus maintain the tension? (Cell phone service is down, Can't jump to FTL too close to a gravity well, Replicators can't work with this special unobtainium, etc.) The object of the tension then changes from solving the problem directly to getting rid of the barriers that stand in the way of the trivial solution. But if the obstacles seem too convenient, contrived, or implausible, then the credibility of the story strains.
b) aren't really new stories, but just echoes of old ones. Fighter ace stories are just warrior-elite stories in new clothes.
This is a really, really dangerous road to walk down: What's the line between a "new story" and an "echo of an old story?" Walking too far down this road leads you into the trap of "Every story is actually a repainting of the Hero's Journey."
My pronouns are <xie> [ʒiː] / <xer> [ʒɚ]

My shitty twitter
User avatar
Xing
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5311
Joined: Sun 22 Aug 2010, 17:46

Re: Technology in conworlds

Post by Xing » Sun 07 Sep 2014, 12:57

I think 'easiness' - when it comes to story-telling, is relative to the task at hand in the plot. In interesting stories, the protagonists must face some obstacles as they are carrying out their missions. Though technnology might make some tasks easier, it can also make possible new tasks (such as travelling to distant galaxies), that were more or less inconceivable given earlier and simpler technology.
User avatar
Thrice Xandvii
darkness
darkness
Posts: 3829
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:13
Location: Carnassus

Re: Technology in conworlds

Post by Thrice Xandvii » Sun 07 Sep 2014, 16:38

Micamo wrote:
XXXVII wrote:Also *adjusts glasses* a Jedi is not faster than light. He is, instead, faster than the human wielding the gun and is possessed of a sixth sense to know where and when the shots will strike before they are fired thus he places his lightsaber in the way. Were a Jedi faster than light, he'd be unbeatable since he could simply kill an entire army before you could even see him.
***NERD WARNING***

Actually in the Expanded Universe things get really silly: Sufficiently powerful Jedi can use The Force to do whatever the writer of the current story wants them to be able to do, up to and including blowing up planets with a thought. I'm far from an expert in the EU, but I wouldn't be surprised if "Force Teleport" were a power a Jedi actually had at some point.
Good point... While I don't believe it to be canon, Galen Marek (the protagonist of the Force Unleashed games) force pulled a Star Destroyer out of orbit!
Image
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3082
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Technology in conworlds

Post by sangi39 » Mon 08 Sep 2014, 00:31

Micamo wrote:I'm far from an expert in the EU...
And now you don't have to be, since it's officially non-canon [:P]

(I was never one for the EU anyway, so that decision didn't exactly make me unhappy)
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Technology in conworlds

Post by eldin raigmore » Mon 08 Sep 2014, 07:54

sangi39 wrote:
Micamo wrote:I'm far from an expert in the EU...
And now you don't have to be, since it's officially non-canon [:P]
I had trouble for about half a minute figuring out why the European Union isn't "canon".
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 18:48
Contact:

Re: Technology in conworlds

Post by Micamo » Mon 08 Sep 2014, 08:24

sangi39 wrote:And now you don't have to be, since it's officially non-canon [:P]

(I was never one for the EU anyway, so that decision didn't exactly make me unhappy)
Meh, the thing about the EU is that it's like writing superhero comics: The only way to keep things even relatively sane is to cherry-pick the stuff that comes before you that you like as "canon" and ignore everything else. If you try to reconcile everything it'll collapse into a black hole of nonsense. It's how EU authors worked up until now and, really, I don't see the situation with the new Star Wars trilogy to be any different. I'm just surprised they're being upfront about it, instead of just ignoring everything in the EU (there's a LOT of stuff on what happened to Luke/Leia/Han after the battle of endor) and hoping nobody notices; They probably know that the Star Wars nerds aren't going to be happy with the new trilogy pretty much no matter *what* they do, so I'd have thought it'd have been safer to not risk any negative press about the film before it's even out (which could potentially hurt its opening weekend).

And to be honest? KOTOR 2 and the Thrawn trilogy are still part of my personal Star Wars canon, and given what we're seeing so far I'm predicting the new trilogy won't be when all of this is over.

(Yes I'm already writing this off as a nostalgic fan-wank created by a team of talentless hacks. Yes, this is unfair, and no, I don't care.)
My pronouns are <xie> [ʒiː] / <xer> [ʒɚ]

My shitty twitter
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3082
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Technology in conworlds

Post by sangi39 » Mon 08 Sep 2014, 12:36

Micamo wrote:
sangi39 wrote:And now you don't have to be, since it's officially non-canon [:P]

(I was never one for the EU anyway, so that decision didn't exactly make me unhappy)
Meh, the thing about the EU is that it's like writing superhero comics: The only way to keep things even relatively sane is to cherry-pick the stuff that comes before you that you like as "canon" and ignore everything else. If you try to reconcile everything it'll collapse into a black hole of nonsense. It's how EU authors worked up until now and, really, I don't see the situation with the new Star Wars trilogy to be any different. I'm just surprised they're being upfront about it, instead of just ignoring everything in the EU (there's a LOT of stuff on what happened to Luke/Leia/Han after the battle of endor); They probably know that the Star Wars nerds aren't going to be happy with the new trilogy pretty much no matter *what* they do, so I'd have thought it'd have been safer to not risk any negative press about the film before it's even out (which could potentially hurt its opening weekend).
I think the main thing that influenced the new definition of what is and is not "canon" mostly came from the fact that so much of the EU deal with events post-Endor. Making it non-canon then means that any new storyline within the new films can't be said to contradict any of the storylines within any EU works. I think the only other two ways to go would be:

a) Making one particular EU storyline canon and then creating a series of films based on that. Downside there being the usual film-adaption-of-a-book criticisms about deviation, but it also implies, for example, that Star Wars isn't solely a work of LucasFilm, which could get weird legally (?), or it could mean that they'd have to pay for the rights to make the films based on those books in the first place. Or it could go:

b) Not making a decision on what is and is not canon in the first place. Fair enough, most people would accept the films as canon, over-riding storylines in previously written EU works, but others might see it as George Lucas ignoring his fan-base or LucasFilm ignoring established storylines.

I don't know much about how canon was dealt with in relation to the prequel trilogy, but personally, I do think the issue of canon needed to be addressed officially at some point. Cherry-picking is all well and good, but the idea never settled with me.

On that note, however, George Lucas' handling of apparent flaws and holes in the continuity between Episode IV and later films within the OT and then between the OT and the PT have annoyed me almost as much. When discussing Luke's attraction to Leia and their kiss, he just outright states that Luke's sister was supposed to be a different character entirely. Fair enough, but then he changed his mind. So what' the in-story explanation? Well, simple really, Luke and Leia just plain didn't know they were brother and sister and you can always draw on evidence for attraction between recently reunited siblings to explain it. But then things get weirder in Episode VI where Leia, in response to Luke's revelation, basically says "I've always known (that you were my brother)". My guess is that Lucas just really wanted incest in the films [:P]

And midichlorians, man... oy! Yes, rooting the Force in some form of scientific jazz was probably a good idea, since the PT has the chance to expand on what the mysterious and extinct Jedi of the OT were, back in the days where they were defenders of the Galaxy and champions of good and all that, but I think that particular explanation fell flat on its face. It doesn't for example, explain how the Force doesn't work on "those of a strong mind", leaving it open to the interpretation of the viewer (I've seen a couple of debates on the matter which usually lie on some level of ambiguity within either the PT or the OT as to how the Force actually works and how it relates the midichlorians).
Micamo wrote: And to be honest? KOTOR 2 and the Thrawn trilogy are still part of my personal Star Wars canon, and given what we're seeing so far I'm predicting the new trilogy won't be when all of this is over.
I think the new trilogy probably will be canon, since it derives directly from LucasFilm, which at the moment seems to be the definition of what can be considered canon. It might not be well-received by the nerdier subset of Star Wars fans, but it might be accepted by the majority of people in general. They might have to deal with the nerds over time, just as they had to with the backlash against the PT, but it's worth pointing out that, without adjusting for inflation*, the PT brought in more money than the OT, and that's what they might look at most at the end of the day.

*Adjusting for inflation, IIRC, the OT did better, but there's still a trend for the first release to do better than the second and the third to do the worst.
Micamo wrote: (Yes I'm already writing this off as a nostalgic fan-wank created by a team of talentless hacks. Yes, this is unfair, and no, I don't care.)
Oh, it might be, but I don't think the majority of people going to see it are going to care at the end of the day [:P]

This is going seriously off-topic and should probably be moved to EE if the discussion continues enough to warrant a new thread.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1468
Joined: Mon 19 Sep 2011, 18:37

Re: Technology in conworlds

Post by Salmoneus » Mon 08 Sep 2014, 13:21

If you don't adjust for inflation, "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" is a bigger hit than "Gone With the Wind". In reality, however, "Gone With the Wind" was on average watched by every single person in the USA six times. If you don't adjust for inflation, "Jaws" was no bigger than "Captain America: The Winter Soldier".

For context, Episode IV was seen by the equivalent of 60% of the American public (equivalent because that doesn't distinguish new viewers from repeat viewers). Episode II was seen by under 20% (again, probably lower when you take into account repeat viewers).


Not adjusting things for inflation makes conclusions meaningless.

[And for what it's worth, even NOT adjusting for inflation, Episode IV made more than any of the films other than Episode I, thanks to its two re-releases, but even just going by its original release it's on the same level as the later films if not above them]
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 18:48
Contact:

Re: Technology in conworlds

Post by Micamo » Mon 08 Sep 2014, 13:38

sangi39 wrote:I think the main thing that influenced the new definition of what is and is not "canon" mostly came from the fact that so much of the EU deal with events post-Endor. Making it non-canon then means that any new storyline within the new films can't be said to contradict any of the storylines within any EU works. I think the only other two ways to go would be:

a) Making one particular EU storyline canon and then creating a series of films based on that. Downside there being the usual film-adaption-of-a-book criticisms about deviation, but it also implies, for example, that Star Wars isn't solely a work of LucasFilm, which could get weird legally (?), or it could mean that they'd have to pay for the rights to make the films based on those books in the first place. Or it could go:

b) Not making a decision on what is and is not canon in the first place. Fair enough, most people would accept the films as canon, over-riding storylines in previously written EU works, but others might see it as George Lucas ignoring his fan-base or LucasFilm ignoring established storylines.
There's a third solution you seem to have overlooked: Find a place on the timeline that looks interesting and relatively untouched by other materials, and go there. Write interesting new characters instead of dragging a 72 year-old Harrison Ford onto the set to play Han Solo again. There's gaps in the EU timeline literally thousands of years wide, there's no excuse for lack of material for this.

Really the thing that upsets me is how they instead dealt with the problem in the most brute-force way possible. It just screams of "We don't care" to me.
I think the new trilogy probably will be canon, since it derives directly from LucasFilm, which at the moment seems to be the definition of what can be considered canon. It might not be well-received by the nerdier subset of Star Wars fans, but it might be accepted by the majority of people in general. They might have to deal with the nerds over time, just as they had to with the backlash against the PT, but it's worth pointing out that, without adjusting for inflation*, the PT brought in more money than the OT, and that's what they might look at most at the end of the day.

*Adjusting for inflation, IIRC, the OT did better, but there's still a trend for the first release to do better than the second and the third to do the worst.
Well, note that I said personal canon. Obviously, the new films are going to be held in high esteem by the community (whether they're any good or not, just as the prequels are), but that's not really what I'm talking about. The reason I care about the SW universe as a setting is because (some of) the stories and characters there found a place in my heart. You may be surprised to hear this, but I actually didn't care much for the OT; They're serviceable pulpy adventure films, sure, but nothing more. I didn't really get into the setting until I played the KOTOR games and then started getting into more of the EU. Of course their first priority is making money, but what I care about is this: Are these new SW films going to capture me the same way my favorite EU stories did?

Given that Disney's handed things off to the same genius who made Star Trek 2: Into Darkness happen, my prediction is "HA HA HA HA HA."
My pronouns are <xie> [ʒiː] / <xer> [ʒɚ]

My shitty twitter
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3082
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Technology in conworlds

Post by sangi39 » Mon 08 Sep 2014, 14:54

Micamo wrote:
sangi39 wrote:I think the main thing that influenced the new definition of what is and is not "canon" mostly came from the fact that so much of the EU deal with events post-Endor. Making it non-canon then means that any new storyline within the new films can't be said to contradict any of the storylines within any EU works. I think the only other two ways to go would be:

a) Making one particular EU storyline canon and then creating a series of films based on that. Downside there being the usual film-adaption-of-a-book criticisms about deviation, but it also implies, for example, that Star Wars isn't solely a work of LucasFilm, which could get weird legally (?), or it could mean that they'd have to pay for the rights to make the films based on those books in the first place. Or it could go:

b) Not making a decision on what is and is not canon in the first place. Fair enough, most people would accept the films as canon, over-riding storylines in previously written EU works, but others might see it as George Lucas ignoring his fan-base or LucasFilm ignoring established storylines.
There's a third solution you seem to have overlooked: Find a place on the timeline that looks interesting and relatively untouched by other materials, and go there. Write interesting new characters instead of dragging a 72 year-old Harrison Ford onto the set to play Han Solo again. There's gaps in the EU timeline literally thousands of years wide, there's no excuse for lack of material for this.

Really the thing that upsets me is how they instead dealt with the problem in the most brute-force way possible. It just screams of "We don't care" to me.
Ah, yeah, true. I think this is basically where the PT started falling down as well, with bringing C-3PO and R2-D2 into it, as well as brief appearances from Chewbacca. You get a lot of people saying they did that so that they could continue having good sales of toys from memorable characters, which is probably, to a degree, true, but there's a small part of me that hopes it was just a badly thought out nod to older fans of the OT, kind of like "hey, just so you know we remember you" sort of thing.

As you said, though, this is likely being done by a generation who grew up on the OT, so we probably should have expected this sort of thing to have happened. With all the reboots and remakes going on with other "nerd" and "geek" franchises and films it does look almost like some directors/producers/whatever are going through some weird nostalgic phase.
Micamo wrote:
I think the new trilogy probably will be canon, since it derives directly from LucasFilm, which at the moment seems to be the definition of what can be considered canon. It might not be well-received by the nerdier subset of Star Wars fans, but it might be accepted by the majority of people in general. They might have to deal with the nerds over time, just as they had to with the backlash against the PT, but it's worth pointing out that, without adjusting for inflation*, the PT brought in more money than the OT, and that's what they might look at most at the end of the day.

*Adjusting for inflation, IIRC, the OT did better, but there's still a trend for the first release to do better than the second and the third to do the worst.
Well, note that I said personal canon. Obviously, the new films are going to be held in high esteem by the community (whether they're any good or not, just as the prequels are), but that's not really what I'm talking about. The reason I care about the SW universe as a setting is because (some of) the stories and characters there found a place in my heart. You may be surprised to hear this, but I actually didn't care much for the OT; They're serviceable pulpy adventure films, sure, but nothing more. I didn't really get into the setting until I played the KOTOR games and then started getting into more of the EU. Of course their first priority is making money, but what I care about is this: Are these new SW films going to capture me the same way my favorite EU stories did?

Given that Disney's handed things off to the same genius who made Star Trek 2: Into Darkness happen, my prediction is "HA HA HA HA HA."
Sorry about that. I was aiming to write a paragraph on the "personal canon" thing, which was basically going to be "well why not [:)]". The material is there and personal taste exists so why shouldn't you be able to keep thinking of the EU a some form of canon?

And then going on to your point about Star Trek 2: Into Darkness, I think this relates back to my "nostalgia" point somewhat. You've got a bunch of people who are now in a position to make really big films and they might also happen to have grown up with SW, ST, the various Marvel and DC comics, etc. and now it's their turn, after years of fandom, to have a turn at holding the torch in some of the most well-known sci-fi sagas of the last thirty to forty years, and they're going to make those films in the way they think makes sense and is a good story, etc. The problem there is, as the internet would suggest, is that that's one direction. Someone, I can't remember who or where, wrote up a different version of the SW:PT, for example, which I thought was pure genius, but which was criticised heavily by others for leaving out various elements mentioned in the OT.

Similarly, you could look at Spider-Man (with Emo McSeabiscuit, a.k.a. Toby McGuire) vs. The Amazing Spider-Man (with Andrew "I'm Going Out With Emma Stone *Raspberry*" Garfield). I hugely prefer The Amazing Spider-Man over Spider-Man because the former, at least in terms of what I remember, was more in line with the comics. Other people, on the other hand, preferred Spider-Man becaue they felt it made Spider-Man and Peter Parker more relateable as characters in a way that the comic-book writers hadn't managed to do before.

Personally I think as long as the "nerd" and "geek" films remain popular and a choice for directors, this is going to be a fairly big problem.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
Lao Kou
korean
korean
Posts: 5654
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012, 10:39
Location: 蘇州/苏州

Re: Technology in conworlds

Post by Lao Kou » Mon 08 Sep 2014, 15:07

sangi39 wrote:When discussing Luke's attraction to Leia and their kiss, he just outright states that Luke's sister was supposed to be a different character entirely. Fair enough, but then he changed his mind. So what's the in-story explanation? Well, simple really, Luke and Leia just plain didn't know they were brother and sister and you can always draw on evidence for attraction between recently reunited siblings to explain it. But then things get weirder in Episode VI where Leia, in response to Luke's revelation, basically says "I've always known (that you were my brother)". My guess is that Lucas just really wanted incest in the films [:P]
Big, big, mythic themes! Siegmund - Sieglinde : Luke - Leia...
道可道,非常道
名可名,非常名
User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010, 18:48
Contact:

Re: Technology in conworlds

Post by Micamo » Mon 08 Sep 2014, 17:02

sangi39 wrote:And then going on to your point about Star Trek 2: Into Darkness, I think this relates back to my "nostalgia" point somewhat. You've got a bunch of people who are now in a position to make really big films and they might also happen to have grown up with SW, ST, the various Marvel and DC comics, etc. and now it's their turn, after years of fandom, to have a turn at holding the torch in some of the most well-known sci-fi sagas of the last thirty to forty years, and they're going to make those films in the way they think makes sense and is a good story, etc. The problem there is, as the internet would suggest, is that that's one direction. Someone, I can't remember who or where, wrote up a different version of the SW:PT, for example, which I thought was pure genius, but which was criticised heavily by others for leaving out various elements mentioned in the OT.

Similarly, you could look at Spider-Man (with Emo McSeabiscuit, a.k.a. Toby McGuire) vs. The Amazing Spider-Man (with Andrew "I'm Going Out With Emma Stone *Raspberry*" Garfield). I hugely prefer The Amazing Spider-Man over Spider-Man because the former, at least in terms of what I remember, was more in line with the comics. Other people, on the other hand, preferred Spider-Man becaue they felt it made Spider-Man and Peter Parker more relateable as characters in a way that the comic-book writers hadn't managed to do before.

Personally I think as long as the "nerd" and "geek" films remain popular and a choice for directors, this is going to be a fairly big problem.
Well, somehow, the Disney-produced Marvel films (i.e. anything not Spider-man or X-Men) are managing to avoid this problem to a large degree, though the thing about movies based on superhero comics is that re-using characters from the comics is sorta the whole point. But they've been (for the most part) able to come up with their own take on the characters and the concepts and not allowed themselves to be shackled down by irrational adherence to the originals.

It's a damned shame too, since anything with Star Wars on it is guaranteed to make big bucks at the box office; This would have been a great place to experiment with some fresh ideas, but instead we got stuck with the likes of J.J. "Mystery Box" Abrahms. Know what I'd really like to see? Star Wars as interpreted by Neill Blomkamp.
My pronouns are <xie> [ʒiː] / <xer> [ʒɚ]

My shitty twitter
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3082
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Star Wars Universe Discussion [Split Topic]

Post by sangi39 » Thu 11 Sep 2014, 19:28

Micamo wrote: Well, somehow, the Disney-produced Marvel films (i.e. anything not Spider-man or X-Men) are managing to avoid this problem to a large degree, though the thing about movies based on superhero comics is that re-using characters from the comics is sorta the whole point. But they've been (for the most part) able to come up with their own take on the characters and the concepts and not allowed themselves to be shackled down by irrational adherence to the originals.
Actually, that's a good point. With the wave of reboots and remakes, (Disney) Marvel seems to be doing really well, in comparison to X-Men and Spider-Man, for some reason or another.

I wonder if that's partly down to the structure of the films. In the (Disney) Marvel films you've basically got a main protagonist going up against a single antagonist, each surrounded by "smaller" characters with multiple protagonists appearing in the Avengers films.

In the X-Men films and in both the Spider-Man and Amazing Spider-Man films, things seem to go the opposite way. With Spider-Man and the Amazing Spider-Man trilogies (with the latter currently unfinished), one of the main criticisms of the second film in each series was that it was too "busy", with too many antagonists in a single film.

In X-Men, there seems to be a trend to try and fit as many mutants a they possibly can into each film, so in contrast to Spider-Man, there are too many protagonists, with the back story only explored later, either as part of the plot of later films (in the case of Jean Grey) or in spin-off films (in the case of Wolverine).

And I wonder, as well, how much of this seems to be down to the perception of the viewer. For me, X-Men, Spider-Man and the various Avenger-related materials have always seemed like three distinct universes (asking my brother and my ex-wife turns up the same result, but obviously that's not a representative sample). First you've got Spider-Man, which basically just follows Peter Parker as he becomes Spider-Man and then goes on to fight various criminals and all-in-all it seems like a fairly self-contained universe. The origin story is, for the most part, always the same, as are the various women in his life and his friends, at least to a point.

Next there's X-Men. Fair enough, a little more complicated because there are more central characters, but generally speaking there are always the same set of protagonists, e.g. Wolverine, Cyclops, Professor X, Storm, Jean, Beast, etc. who all share a similar origin story, i.e. mutation and a struggle for acceptance within a world what otherwise fears or hates them. Their exact backgrounds and histories might change, but generally speaking, I think X-Men, at least to me, has always been about the story as much as it was about the characters, which you kind of lose in the movies.

And then there's the rest of the Marvel Universe which is, let's face it, a bit of a mess. Currently we see Thor as a semi-immortal super-being from another planet/world, but IIRC, wasn't there an incarnation of Thor who was just a guy from Earth who was worthy of the power of Thor who, if he let go of Mjolnir, for too long, would revert back to his human form? There's so much going on in the rest of the Marvel universe that from my perspective it's fairly difficult to keep track of what's actually going on and how that relates to past stories.

Fair enough, you get the same thing in the Spider-Man and X-Men 'verses, but overall I think people are more willing to accept a fairly unbound level of creative freedom from the rest of the Marvel universe than in those two particular branches of it.

It would be quite interesting to hear your thoughts on the matter [:)]
Micamo wrote: It's a damned shame too, since anything with Star Wars on it is guaranteed to make big bucks at the box office; This would have been a great place to experiment with some fresh ideas, but instead we got stuck with the likes of J.J. "Mystery Box" Abrahms. Know what I'd really like to see? Star Wars as interpreted by Neill Blomkamp.
Well Sharlto Copley would have to be in it for one thing [;)]
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
Thakowsaizmu
puremetal
puremetal
Posts: 3821
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2010, 17:57
Contact:

Re: Star Wars Universe Discussion [Split Topic]

Post by Thakowsaizmu » Fri 19 Sep 2014, 04:44

The more I delve into Star Wars, the more I honestly hate Star Wars. And this delving has been going on since I was a kid [:S]
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3082
Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Star Wars Universe Discussion [Split Topic]

Post by sangi39 » Mon 22 Sep 2014, 15:30

Thakowsaizmu wrote:The more I delve into Star Wars, the more I honestly hate Star Wars. And this delving has been going on since I was a kid [:S]
I certainly become more disappointed with Star Wars the more I look into the background behind it, especially in relation to, say, continuity errors, unnecessary (probably better to say "boring" [:P]) plot lines and character inclusion as well as George Lucas' general attitude, or at least how his attitude comes across.

Take, for example, Luke asking Leia if she remembered her real mother, to which she replies that she was very sad. Well, screaming in pain and being absolutely heartbroken while giving birth and then dying soon afterwards her twin children had just been born (mere minutes after) probably does count as sad. Neither the prequel or the original trilogy, however, explains how Leia can remember an event that occurred at the very moment of her birth. We're left to develop divergent hypotheses or George Lucas has to come up with some explanation.

Then there's the up-coming sequel trilogy which George Lucas once said, back in 2000-and-something, he would never make because too many people were whining about how big a failure the prequel trilogy was. Fast-forward about a decade and all of a sudden Star Wars: Episode VII isn't just an idea but a reality.

There's been so much flip-flopping over Star Wars that you can kind of understand why a lot of people get a bit sick of it, even if they still, as I do, like the films themselves (minus any personal disdain for certain characters, elements, etc.).



On a side note, after years of wondering if I ever would, I've finally met someone who's never seen Star Wars or Star Trek. Their actual description of Star Trek was "is that the one with like the spacey elf-like people with pointy ears?". Best day ever!
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4627
Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16

Re: Star Wars Universe Discussion [Split Topic]

Post by DesEsseintes » Tue 23 Sep 2014, 15:30

On a side note, after years of wondering if I ever would, I've finally met someone who's never seen Star Wars or Star Trek. Their actual description of Star Trek was "is that the one with like the spacey elf-like people with pointy ears?". Best day ever!

Although I have seen an episode or two of Star Trek, I've never watched an entire Star Wars movie and Yes, I would be the person asking whether those were the films with the weird hairy Bigfoot-like creature in a spaceship that makes those incredibly annoying sounds... But I'm probably somewhat less benighted than that other person, as I do know that there is a Queen Amidala somewhere along the way.
User avatar
Lambuzhao
earth
earth
Posts: 7584
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57

Re: Star Wars Universe Discussion [Split Topic]

Post by Lambuzhao » Wed 24 Sep 2014, 00:01

Thakowsaizmu wrote:The more I delve into Star Wars, the more I honestly hate Star Wars. And this delving has been going on since I was a kid [:S]
I could kvetch all night, and maybe some evening I just will. But I still get a thrill, especially watching Empire, or, as my son used to call it when he was little Star Wars: Ice Monster Snow.
Sangi39 wrote: Then there's the up-coming sequel trilogy which George Lucas once said, back in 2000-and-something, he would never make because too many people were whining about how big a failure the prequel trilogy was. Fast-forward about a decade and all of a sudden Star Wars: Episode VII isn't just an idea but a reality.
Meh. I remember reading about "the next trilogy", "three trilogies", "triune troikas" yadda yadda, since ca.1984. Lucas cannot resist the Dark Side of The Dollar.

One of my biggest fears about Episode VII, as compared to the prequels especially, was encapsulated, funnily, in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhIIxL36b_8

Still can't get enough of the merchandising, though:
McQuarrie Concept figures & Black Series Darth Plagueis were recent pecuniary
peccadillos. [B)]

Also, I sort of dug the Dark Horse "The Star Wars" comics series.
In the back of my mind, I wished someone would've redone the original(s)
using McQuarrie's original designs, in a sort of Aeon Flux style of animation.
User avatar
Lambuzhao
earth
earth
Posts: 7584
Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57

Re: Star Wars Universe Discussion [Split Topic]

Post by Lambuzhao » Wed 24 Sep 2014, 00:15

Star Wars as interpreted by Neill Blomkamp.

Well Sharlto Copley would have to be in it for one thing [;)]

Drool
Post Reply