I was inspired to write down some thoughts after seeing Star Wars tonight. depending what expectations you had going in, you'd justifiably have a very different take on the movie. does science...
I was inspired to write down some thoughts after seeing Star Wars tonight. depending what expectations you had going in, you'd justifiably have a very different take on the movie.
does science fiction require believable, logically consistent world-building that allows complete immersion? that's what I prefer, and find most interesting. in a way, it seems too high a bar to set, given that article talking about how, before Tolkien, unabashed fantasy was not a thing (prior work using Narnia's closet link-to-the-real-world copout, instead of fully committing to building a standalone immersive reality).
however, I'd like to think it's not that difficult to create fiction that is immersive. it's definitely a lot easier in written form, where you can more easily envelop yourself inside a reality created by your imagination. however, it seems to have become the standard to accept immersion-breaking from movies nowadays, through not just logical inconsistency in their reality, but endless cameos, fan service ("hey what movie was that line from?"), and other nostalga ("haha this is just like that other scene that was repeated 7 times already").
I vaguely remember some conversations on here along these lines, about expectations for scifi, its definition, possibly even referencing some Tolkien quotes. the closest I could find is this post:
We're in the middle of the superhero-craze right now and that's largely replaced science fiction cinema. The latest star trek films make for fine popcorn-munching action movies, but calling them 'science fiction' is an insult to the genre. Star Wars has never been science fiction, it's fantasy with lasers, space ships, ghosts, and glowing swords. It's sad that the fucking Orville has better science fiction elements in it than we've seen in most media lately.
a more tildes-conducive title would have been "what does scifi mean to you?". I imagine some people don't look for the same things I do. the box office sure seems to point in that direction.
I think it's a mistake to think that more realism is better. I prefer the metaphor of "imaginary gardens with real toads in them," as the poet wrote. There needs to be some core part of a story...
I think it's a mistake to think that more realism is better. I prefer the metaphor of "imaginary gardens with real toads in them," as the poet wrote. There needs to be some core part of a story that rings true but the rest can be highly stylized in order to avoid getting bogged down in extraneous detail. There are usually genre-specific conventions about this that most stories go along with, unless they're violated for effect.
There is often something satisfying about good world-building but I'm not sure it's realism but rather adherence to different conventions and elaboration within certain stylistic rules.
I was inspired to write down some thoughts after seeing Star Wars tonight. depending what expectations you had going in, you'd justifiably have a very different take on the movie.
does science fiction require believable, logically consistent world-building that allows complete immersion? that's what I prefer, and find most interesting. in a way, it seems too high a bar to set, given that article talking about how, before Tolkien, unabashed fantasy was not a thing (prior work using Narnia's closet link-to-the-real-world copout, instead of fully committing to building a standalone immersive reality).
however, I'd like to think it's not that difficult to create fiction that is immersive. it's definitely a lot easier in written form, where you can more easily envelop yourself inside a reality created by your imagination. however, it seems to have become the standard to accept immersion-breaking from movies nowadays, through not just logical inconsistency in their reality, but endless cameos, fan service ("hey what movie was that line from?"), and other nostalga ("haha this is just like that other scene that was repeated 7 times already").
I vaguely remember some conversations on here along these lines, about expectations for scifi, its definition, possibly even referencing some Tolkien quotes. the closest I could find is this post:
a more tildes-conducive title would have been "what does scifi mean to you?". I imagine some people don't look for the same things I do. the box office sure seems to point in that direction.
I think it's a mistake to think that more realism is better. I prefer the metaphor of "imaginary gardens with real toads in them," as the poet wrote. There needs to be some core part of a story that rings true but the rest can be highly stylized in order to avoid getting bogged down in extraneous detail. There are usually genre-specific conventions about this that most stories go along with, unless they're violated for effect.
There is often something satisfying about good world-building but I'm not sure it's realism but rather adherence to different conventions and elaboration within certain stylistic rules.