Why do people demand realism in fiction
bar...@shentel.net
picture a world that looks totally different from the real world.
But really it's not even real "realism" After all we occasionally see
multiple time loser supervillains out and about and not being pursued
by police. But with the amount of destruction they cause the only way
they'd ever get out of jail is breaking out.
JLB
gandrw...@gmail.com
Not really sure what you're going for, but I do know that different
people have different tastes. It really depends on what level of
realism you're going of. If Peter Parker thinks Aunt May has died, and
he isn't at all upset about it, then that's not very realistic seeing
as how people in the real world get upset when their loved ones die.
That doesn't mean we need to see him go to the bathroom.
Perhaps the issue at hand is that there are some things that have to be
unrealistic to make the stories work (people not freaking out about
alien vigilantes in their midst), but in order for us to make a
connection with the stories, we have to be able to relate to the
character on some level. It's one of the things that makes us care
what happens to the character.
But I think the setting also has something to do with it. I find
myself more apt to want to relate to your average DC or Marvel
super-hero than, say, Luke Skywalker. Because going into it, I know
Luke is living in a completely different world, and therefore my
appreciation is more objective. But most of these super-heroes live in
a world that is still sufficiently like ours that it's not unfair to
expect it to work like ours when there's no real benefit not to.
Not to mention the more pragmatic issue that a true, complete departure
from reality is not generally considered to be a good thing. In most
cases, fantasy is a bell curve. You're allowed to be optimistic, but
don't be a pollyanna. You're allowed to create a world with unreal
elements, but don't totally lose consistency. After all, in a true
fantasy world, nothing would remain the same from one moment to the
next. And yet, in most successful fantasy, there are rules - they are
just different rules.
But thanks for inspiring what is probably a senseless rant when I need
to get to bed...
bar...@shentel.net
I'm referring more to the darker side of realism. People complaining
that superheroes are to good to be true, or that the people in
fictional universes should react to them with the same cynicism that's
common in the real world. In fact I think some of Batman's apparent
psychological problems could be attributed to a demand for realism.
I agree about rules, but I consider that consistenct which can be
different from realism.
JLB
tphile
I don't think "realism" is the correct word.
Comics and most fiction can be successfull without being realistic.
Space Travel in Star Wars is not realistic.
and I have no problems with imaginary cities like Gotham or Metropolis
or Atlantis.
Its more a case of, once the rules of story are established, then obey
the rules or don't cheat. and treat it with respect.
Like if you kill off a beloved character, don't write an implausible
story where she slept with the heroes worst enemy and gave birth to
instant grow children.
readers have a right to expect consistancy or judge if any changes are
good or bad
and creator should know that readers suspension of belief is not unlimited
tphile
bar...@shentel.net
tphile wrote:
> bar...@shentel.net wrote:
> > I really think it's a lack of imagination. Some people just can't
> > picture a world that looks totally different from the real world.
> >
> > But really it's not even real "realism" After all we occasionally see
> > multiple time loser supervillains out and about and not being pursued
> > by police. But with the amount of destruction they cause the only way
> > they'd ever get out of jail is breaking out.
> >
> > JLB
> >
>
> I don't think "realism" is the correct word.
> Comics and most fiction can be successfull without being realistic.
> Space Travel in Star Wars is not realistic.
> and I have no problems with imaginary cities like Gotham or Metropolis
> or Atlantis.
Which is kind of my point. It's not realistic. But somehow they think
the people in these universes, with their different rules, should
really be the same as they are in the real world.
JLB
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
My biggest complaints have little to do with realism.....
1. Decompression
2. SHitting on great stories of the past....Example: Superboy, the
Greatest Legionairre of them all, sacrifices his life to save his
Earth....then John Byrne destroys Pocket Earth rendering Superboys
sacrifice completly irrelevent. THEN the editors remove him completly
from history. OR Jim Starlin writes a great story about Syzygy Darklok
sacrificing his life to stop the 12 Gods of the Instrumentality....and
Peter David brings them back....as a little kid.
3. Lack of imagination... "I won't let continuity get in the way of a
great story" A good writer finds ways around continuity. A good writer
makes continuity work for his story instead of disregarding it.
Ophidian
>
> But I think the setting also has something to do with it. I find
> myself more apt to want to relate to your average DC or Marvel
> super-hero than, say, Luke Skywalker. Because going into it, I know
> Luke is living in a completely different world, and therefore my
> appreciation is more objective. But most of these super-heroes live in
> a world that is still sufficiently like ours that it's not unfair to
> expect it to work like ours when there's no real benefit not to.
OTOH, I can forgive Star Wars more easily, since it's a blatant
fantasy, then I can Star Trek, which pretends to be "our" future.
Related to, "Things I might find very entertaining in Elseworlds, I
might find mind bogglingly stupid in the 'real' continuity."
Hunt
bar...@shentel.net wrote:
> > readers have a right to expect consistancy or judge if any changes are
> > good or bad
> > and creator should know that readers suspension of belief is not unlimited
I think there are several factors at work here. First, some people do
like realistic fiction, as a matter of taste. Others may be OK with
some unrealistic elements, but they still want human behavior to be
realistic. Others are OK with even more unreality, but still need
consistency in order to suspend disbelief.
I was thinking about Jim Shooter's series for Defiant, "Warriors of
Plasm," which took place on a world with "humans," but with a setting
and attitudes so different from our own that I found it very difficult
to relate.
bar...@shentel.net
Of course I also don't understand the desire to "relate" to fictional
characters either. Trying to compare your experiences to people who
regularly have six billion lives on their shoulders seems kind of
arrogant. Plus it assumes human nature is something immutable, rather
the the result of the world being what it is.
If the nature of the world changed, I think human nature would change
too.
JLB
Hunt
characters, and it's easier to identify with, say, Peter Parker or Luke
Skywalker, than with a sentient energy pulse or something.
gandrw...@gmail.com
Ah, but I don't know that I'm so much trying to relate to, say,
Superman, as I am trying to relate to Jimmy Olsen. Or in general
relate to the world around Superman. I want to read about a hero
fixing things in my world, not fixing things in an alien world that
they just want to call Earth.
But to your "darker" concept, I think you have a point. It's not that
you can't have cynics and child-molesters in a world where people fly
and shoot ray beams from their eyes; it's more odd to have cynics and
child-molesters in a world where people respect spandex-clad
vigilantes; where villains operate in broad daylight without figuring
out that if they would just wear normal clothes and do stuff at night,
they might not get caught; or where aliens from outer space attack
regularly, but people still manage to go about their lives normally.
All of which is about psychology and sociology, not physics.
Or to use a more recent example, you can't have super-heroes without
secret identities, and you can't have secret identities without people
finding out the secret, and you can't have people finding out the
secret without having the ability to make them forget the secret, and
you can't have the ability to make them forget about the secret if the
methodology of doing so is considered "evil".
So as realistic as it might be to have people get upset about mental
tampering, you can't have super-heroes without people being OK with
mental tampering.
(all speaking very generally, of course)
Aaron F. Bourque
Because Allen Moore and a few other writers in the 80s got recognition
for stories which included a level of verisimilitude that was much more
than most other comics ever had.
The verisimilitude, however, was merely a part of why those stories
were recognized. It's not laziness or lack of imagination. It's failure
to fully analyze why certain stories were good and just trying
something that worked without knowing why.
I mean, look at Astro City. It's not realistic. But what it is, and
what B:TAS was is "believable." Even Watchmen isn't "realistic." It's
perhaps more realistic than most comics, but it's "believable."
Marvels, Squadron Supreme, Sandman? Believable, not realistic.
Partly it's the believability of the the characters, partly it's the
believability of the comic book science, partly it's the believability
of the cosmic hand-wavery. But believability is also why Spider-Man was
such a success. Believability is often mistaken for realism, though, so
people keep thinking what they want is "realism" when what they want is
"believability."
It's not that realism is bad, it's just contradictory with
super-heroes.
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
lione...@yahoo.com
Speaking for myself. I expect people to have consistent personalities
(as mercurial or schizophrenic as some may be). I expect that there
are natural laws in their world, regardless of how similar they are to
ours. This latter one is especially important as otherwise there is
never any suspense. Any deus ex machina can be employed to get the
hero out of trouble at any time.
I love Grant Morrison, and enjoy works by Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis,
Peter Milligan, Alan Moore, and John Rozum (and this is just in comics)
that all have weird or surreal high-concept stories, but they maintain
a necessary bit of realism. Characters interact believeably in these
environments.
Joe
bar...@shentel.net
lione...@yahoo.com wrote:
> bar...@shentel.net wrote:
> > I really think it's a lack of imagination. Some people just can't
> > picture a world that looks totally different from the real world.
> >
> > But really it's not even real "realism" After all we occasionally see
> > multiple time loser supervillains out and about and not being pursued
> > by police. But with the amount of destruction they cause the only way
> > they'd ever get out of jail is breaking out.
> >
> > JLB
>
> Speaking for myself. I expect people to have consistent personalities
> (as mercurial or schizophrenic as some may be). I expect that there
> are natural laws in their world, regardless of how similar they are to
> ours. This latter one is especially important as otherwise there is
> never any suspense. Any deus ex machina can be employed to get the
> hero out of trouble at any time.
Of course. I don't even call this realism. I just consider it
internal consistency.
>
> I love Grant Morrison, and enjoy works by Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis,
> Peter Milligan, Alan Moore, and John Rozum (and this is just in comics)
> that all have weird or surreal high-concept stories, but they maintain
> a necessary bit of realism. Characters interact believeably in these
> environments.
>
> Joe
Interesting. I suppose my big question based on that is: Do you expect
people who live in these universes to react to things the same way as
people in the real world react to things?
JLB
Meat
bar...@shentel.net wrote:
> lione...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I love Grant Morrison, and enjoy works by Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis,
> > Peter Milligan, Alan Moore, and John Rozum (and this is just in comics)
> > that all have weird or surreal high-concept stories, but they maintain
> > a necessary bit of realism. Characters interact believeably in these
> > environments.
> >
> > Joe
>
> Interesting. I suppose my big question based on that is: Do you expect
> people who live in these universes to react to things the same way as
> people in the real world react to things?
IMO (I can't speak for the original poster), they don't need to react
to things the way a typical 'real' person would. However, they need to
behave in a manner that is consistent with the character's past actions
and what is known about them.
In many settings, the characters are they only thing the audience can
easily relate to. They become an anchor for the audience -- something
they can identify with when the entire world is new and the laws of
physics don't apply.
An example I use often is the horrible film Alien Resurrection. Early
in the film, the veteran leader of the mercenary squad goes off on his
own to gather weapons from soldiers (not his) that have fallen in the
complex. Given that the following are established:
- he's a veteran mercenary
- he's smart enough to lead a veteran team of mercs
- something unknown is killing armed guards
- he and his team are already armed to the teeth
it's not realistic, at all, that he would venture out on his own for
any reason. Predicably, he dies at the hands of an alien. If he acted
in character, he wouldn't have died alone (or at all, as there was no
compelling to split the squad, IIRC). In the end, it was a stupid way
to die, and a veteran merc wouldn't have made that mistake.
David Johnston
>> I love Grant Morrison, and enjoy works by Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis,
>> Peter Milligan, Alan Moore, and John Rozum (and this is just in comics)
>> that all have weird or surreal high-concept stories, but they maintain
>> a necessary bit of realism. Characters interact believeably in these
>> environments.
>>
>> Joe
>
>Interesting. I suppose my big question based on that is: Do you expect
>people who live in these universes to react to things the same way as
>people in the real world react to things?
I prefer the impossibilities to limited to the bare minimum of stuff
required to make the power fantasy work.
lione...@yahoo.com
Magnus, Robot Fighter. wrote:
> 2. SHitting on great stories of the past..... OR Jim Starlin writes a great story about Syzygy Darklok
> sacrificing his life to stop the 12 Gods of the Instrumentality....and
> Peter David brings them back....as a little kid.
>
Wasn't Jim Starlin in on this. I believe he owns the characters and
thought Peter David's actions were with his blessings. Am I wrong?
Tim Turnip
>picture a world that looks totally different from the real world.
I *love* my comic books to be a blend of fantasy and realism. That
mix is, if anything, the central characteristic that attracts me to
comics today. But I assure you, it's a matter of taste, not "lack of
imagination".
Tim Turnip
>Of course I also don't understand the desire to "relate" to fictional
>characters either.
Then I would venture that you really don't understand fiction.
Fictional characters are always meant to be identifiable with the
reader on some level, and protagonistic characters even more
specifically so.
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
<lione...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He handed the whole thing kit and kaboodle to David with his blessing.
Doesn't mean he asserted story approval or anything. I'm pretty sure
he walked away from Dreadstar from that moment on and didn't look
back. He does still own Dreadstar though.
mimf
What is meant by "relating to" a character? I can be interested in
reading about a character even though I have nothing in common with them.
Nathan Sanders
mimf <mi...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:10:01 -0600, Tim Turnip wrote:
>
> > On 30 Mar 2006 06:57:34 -0800, bar...@shentel.net wrote:
> >>Of course I also don't understand the desire to "relate" to fictional
> >>characters either.
> >
> > Then I would venture that you really don't understand fiction. Fictional
> > characters are always meant to be identifiable with the reader on some
> > level, and protagonistic characters even more specifically so.
>
> What is meant by "relating to" a character?
Being able to understand why they do what they do, so that the end of
the story follows logically from everything before it.
Otherwise, you end up with Identity Crisis. ;)
> I can be interested in
> reading about a character even though I have nothing in common with them.
Nothing at all? Nothing remotely resembling emotions, communication,
capacity for reason, and/or self-awareness... absolutely, flat-out
nothing in common whatsoever?
Such a character might be interesting on occasion, but there are very
few comic creators I'd trust to pull it off well at all (probably
almost no one besides Morrison, Gaiman, and Moore). I certainly
wouldn't want to read about such characters on a regular basis, and I
imagine the vast majority of comic readers feel the same way
(otherwise, I'd be able to name multiple such characters, but I can't
even come up with one; even the likes of Bizarro and Dr. Manhattan are
"grounded" with human characteristics that allow us to relate to them
on some level).
It's just really hard to get thoroughly invested in fiction when it is
*completely* divergent from everything you know. Something familiar
is usually required to hook you in.
Nathan
Brian Henderson
>I really think it's a lack of imagination. Some people just can't
>picture a world that looks totally different from the real world.
Everything has realisim in it. You don't see many stories where
gravity doesn't work, all of the characters are energy creatures from
a hive-mind that don't think in any way we could ever hope to
comprehend. I can't think of a single story that doesn't have at
least some elements of our reality in them and if someone ever did
write one, I'd expect it to fail miserably.
Why? Because we, as humans, are reading it!
Brian Henderson
>Which is kind of my point. It's not realistic. But somehow they think
>the people in these universes, with their different rules, should
>really be the same as they are in the real world.
Why isn't Gotham City or Metropolis realistic? We know what cities
are, is the fact that they gave them different names wrong somehow?
Heck, everyone knows that Metropolis is really New York City with a
different name anyhow.
Brian Henderson
>What is meant by "relating to" a character? I can be interested in
>reading about a character even though I have nothing in common with them.
But if you can't understand the character, their motivations or their
attributes, then how can you be interested in them? A totally alien
character without anything you can even remotely relate to, simply
isn't interesting. I don't think you can name a single character that
you have absolutely nothing in common with.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>I *love* my comic books to be a blend of fantasy and realism. That
>mix is, if anything, the central characteristic that attracts me to
>comics today. But I assure you, it's a matter of taste, not "lack of
>imagination".
Exactly. That's why I really detest DC's iconic characters, they
really lack most of the realism that I want to see in any story.
Marvel isn't all that much better, but at least they try. The last
thing I'm interested in is an epic fantasy where I can't identify with
any of the characters at all.
tphile
Isn't that the goal and purpose of fiction stories? To entertain and
educate us. Therefore it has to be done in some form we can relate to
otherwise it doesn't work.
Fiction is a means for us to experience things second hand without the
dangers and risk and cost of actually doing the real thing.
Like a roller coaster ride, we experience the thrills and chills but in
a safer and controlled manner.
Its like a joke told in binary language, if we don't understand it, we
don't get it. but a computer might
tphile
David Johnston
"We're both mammals!"
tphile
Solaris
The 2001 Monolith
some women I've known
;-)
tphile
mimf
The problem is with the "absolutely" part. I have to speak the same
language the character does, for example (or have it translated in the
comic). But I don't have to understand the character or share their
attributes. For example, I don't really understand the motivations of the
title character in DC/Vertigo's "Lucifer" comic. Trying to figure him out
is part of what makes him interesting. But ultimately he isn't human even
if he seems to display human traits at times. So he's not a character I'd
say I could relate to.
mimf
> In article <pan.2006.03.30....@nospam.com>,
> mimf <mi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:10:01 -0600, Tim Turnip wrote:
>>
>> > On 30 Mar 2006 06:57:34 -0800, bar...@shentel.net wrote:
>> >>Of course I also don't understand the desire to "relate" to fictional
>> >>characters either.
>> >
>> > Then I would venture that you really don't understand fiction.
>> > Fictional characters are always meant to be identifiable with the
>> > reader on some level, and protagonistic characters even more
>> > specifically so.
>>
>> What is meant by "relating to" a character?
>
> Being able to understand why they do what they do, so that the end of the
> story follows logically from everything before it.
That's not quite how I would have defined it. I would have thought
"relating to" a character would have more to do with seeing aspects of
myself in them -- seeing similarities between my life and theirs.
> Otherwise, you end up with Identity Crisis. ;)
>
>> I can be interested in
>> reading about a character even though I have nothing in common with
>> them.
>
> Nothing at all? Nothing remotely resembling emotions, communication,
> capacity for reason, and/or self-awareness... absolutely, flat-out nothing
> in common whatsoever?
Mostly nothing in common. As with the Lucifer character I mentioned
elsewhere in this thread.
> Such a character might be interesting on occasion, but there are very
> few comic creators I'd trust to pull it off well at all (probably almost
> no one besides Morrison, Gaiman, and Moore). I certainly wouldn't want
> to read about such characters on a regular basis, and I imagine the vast
> majority of comic readers feel the same way (otherwise, I'd be able to
> name multiple such characters, but I can't even come up with one; even
> the likes of Bizarro and Dr. Manhattan are "grounded" with human
> characteristics that allow us to relate to them on some level).
>
> It's just really hard to get thoroughly invested in fiction when it is
> *completely* divergent from everything you know. Something familiar is
> usually required to hook you in.
>
> Nathan
Something has to be familiar. I don't disagree with you on that. But a
character doesn't have to be human or behave the same way I would in the
same situation for me to find them interesting. I can understand why a
character acts as he does without identifying with him/her. And I can find
him/her interesting even if I don't understand why he/she acts as he/she
does.
bar...@shentel.net
Well, this is interesting. I'm surprised by the many defintions of
realism. Every time I've encountered the word realism in association
with fiction it's been a sign of "grim and grittiness" that Batman is
Batman because of psychological scars not because he wants to keep what
happened to him from happening to someone else(for example) that the
average person on the street is as cynical as in the real world and
that everyone has some ulterior motive.
JLB
prestorjon
said we're not looking for realism so much as naturalism. After all
it's not realistic to have a man fly and we accept that. But we don't
accept characters who act unnaturally.
Jon J. Yeager
news:1143692519....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Which is kind of my point. It's not realistic. But somehow they think
> the people in these universes, with their different rules, should
> really be the same as they are in the real world.
>
Why did Star Trek succeed where other similar franchises -- like the
original Battlestar Galactica -- fail?
Because of the element of realism thrown in.
In BSG, the heroes were pin-up models, the Cylons looked cool, the ships
looked cool, everything LOOKED the part. And it was fun sugar to eat for a
while.
While I wouldn't consider myself a Stat Trek fan, I do see WHY that
franchise thrived where others fizzled. It's because even though Warp drive
doesn't exist, they at least TRY to explain how it works. Everything you see
in this show has an explanation that writers spent more than 10 seconds
making as believable as possible. Even the food replicator and that playroom
they have that recreates any environment they want. Apparently, Klingon is
an actual language they sat down and created. The words actually all mean
something. There's a freakin' Klingon/English dictionary out there
somewhere.
Then you add actual political conflicts between nations (races) with no
"good guy" or "bad guy" in them... more realism. Political conflicts seldom
have a clear-cut good guy or bad guy.
You prefer the BSG model. You want your bad guys with their fingers arched
and an evil grin on their faces. You like your heroes virtuous, with white
hats, who never take a dump, never had sex, and always stop to help a cat
down from a tree.
Other people prefer realism in their fiction.
Like it or not, the world around you is slowly moving towards that latter
model. The success of reality tv is just the tip of the iceberg.
It doesn't make you wrong for being different. But at least acknowledge that
you are.
Jon
--
Denny Colt: "I've found that no amount of clarification is
too much with some people here..."
Jon: "What do you mean?"
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
wrote:
><bar...@shentel.net> wrote in message
>news:1143692519....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Which is kind of my point. It's not realistic. But somehow they think
>> the people in these universes, with their different rules, should
>> really be the same as they are in the real world.
>>
>> JLB
>
>Why did Star Trek succeed where other similar franchises -- like the
>original Battlestar Galactica -- fail?
>
Actually the original BSG got ratings that Star Trek never even came
close too. BSG failed because it cost too damn much.
Jon J. Yeager
news:vcqq22diopmvomn5e...@4ax.com...
>
> Actually the original BSG got ratings that Star Trek never even came
> close too. BSG failed because it cost too damn much.
And that would be because it was all-sugar, no brains, as is explained later
on in the parts you snipped. ;)
A smart show is likely going to be less expensive (and more interesting)
than one that put all of its budget in the bangs and booms.
Brian Henderson
>The problem is with the "absolutely" part. I have to speak the same
>language the character does, for example (or have it translated in the
>comic). But I don't have to understand the character or share their
>attributes. For example, I don't really understand the motivations of the
>title character in DC/Vertigo's "Lucifer" comic. Trying to figure him out
>is part of what makes him interesting. But ultimately he isn't human even
>if he seems to display human traits at times. So he's not a character I'd
>say I could relate to.
Lucifer isn't human, but he still has the same general motivations
that humans have and a lot of the people in the book are human. He's
actually pretty easy to relate to IMO.
David Henry
"Brian Henderson" <BrianL.H...@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cbto22dtqs2jqucb7...@4ax.com...
That's the key ingredient -- relatability.
While I'm a huge fan of fiction, I relate less to science fiction, and even
less to fantasy. I just can't get into a world full of dragons, unicorns,
wizards, and the like. Too far off base for me, although it is good eye
candy.
And I agree about the DC characters. While they are more iconic, they are
less relatable. You feel that nothing bad can really happen to them, so you
read them without a sense of real threat.
It took me many years to warm up to DC. When I was younger, the only book I
collected was Teen Titans. Yes, I was a teen, then, but I felt Marv Wolfman
and George Perez told no-holds-barred stories full of threat and change of
status quo. The Teen Titans of the 80s and 90s felt very real to me, like a
Marvel team (X-Men/ New Mutants, of course).
As for relatability again, it's why anime is popular. The characters are
very real, despite the fantastic aspect of the films/shows.
Dave
Ophidian
>
> That's the key ingredient -- relatability.
>
> While I'm a huge fan of fiction, I relate less to science fiction, and even
> less to fantasy. I just can't get into a world full of dragons, unicorns,
> wizards, and the like. Too far off base for me, although it is good eye
> candy.
I'm still using "relatable" as you can understand and perhaps
emphasize with the characters.
So I _prefer_ fantasy, where you get to see how people would react
to the extra-ordinary.
OTOH, other do the fantastic elements and yeah, it becomes hard
to swallow all the internal contradiction and external similarities.
> And I agree about the DC characters. While they are more iconic, they are
> less relatable. You feel that nothing bad can really happen to them, so you
> read them without a sense of real threat.
I'd say that hasn't been true in 20 years.
DC's made quite of a string of having bad things happen to
their characters.
Part of the appeal of the iconics for me is that they used to be able
to rise above the "bad things".
Now they're committing them.
Even in very realistic fiction, I usually want to see the
protagonists overcome difficulty, not wallow in it.
> As for relatability again, it's why anime is popular. The characters are
> very real, despite the fantastic aspect of the films/shows.
I suppose this depends on the cross section you've seen.
I've never been impressed with the worlds or characters of anime
as "realistic" or "relatable".
Sure they're more flawed than, say DC's iconics, but they're flawed
in "archetypal" or "stereotypical" ways.
bar...@shentel.net
> <bar...@shentel.net> wrote in message
> news:1143692519....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Which is kind of my point. It's not realistic. But somehow they think
> > the people in these universes, with their different rules, should
> > really be the same as they are in the real world.
> >
> > JLB
>
> Why did Star Trek succeed where other similar franchises -- like the
> original Battlestar Galactica -- fail?
>
> Because of the element of realism thrown in.
>
> In BSG, the heroes were pin-up models, the Cylons looked cool, the ships
> looked cool, everything LOOKED the part. And it was fun sugar to eat for a
> while.
>
> While I wouldn't consider myself a Stat Trek fan, I do see WHY that
> franchise thrived where others fizzled. It's because even though Warp drive
> doesn't exist, they at least TRY to explain how it works. Everything you see
> in this show has an explanation that writers spent more than 10 seconds
> making as believable as possible. Even the food replicator and that playroom
> they have that recreates any environment they want. Apparently, Klingon is
> an actual language they sat down and created. The words actually all mean
> something. There's a freakin' Klingon/English dictionary out there
> somewhere.
I believe it's a fan created language, that the show offically adopted.
>
> Then you add actual political conflicts between nations (races) with no
> "good guy" or "bad guy" in them... more realism. Political conflicts seldom
> have a clear-cut good guy or bad guy.
>
> You prefer the BSG model. You want your bad guys with their fingers arched
> and an evil grin on their faces. You like your heroes virtuous, with white
> hats, who never take a dump, never had sex, and always stop to help a cat
> down from a tree.
>
> Other people prefer realism in their fiction.
>
> Like it or not, the world around you is slowly moving towards that latter
> model. The success of reality tv is just the tip of the iceberg.
>
> It doesn't make you wrong for being different. But at least acknowledge that
> you are.
>
> Jon
I suppose. But at the same time I'm hearing praise for realism, I'm
hearing people complain about heroes suffering psychosis, etc.
I'll cop to the rescuing cats from trees. But as for the other stuff,
I don't mind the occasional villain who but for one wrong turn could be
a hero or has an admirable set of morals.
As for heroes, I want them to do things because they legitimately
believe it's the right thing to do, and a majority of people could
agree. Not obsessions. I want them to stand above the petty squables
of the everyday world, if there are any, and fight like hell to stop
from being dragged down into them. Not caving in and coming up with an
easier way to do it. I'm not a fan of superheroes as an agent of
societal change, unless we're talking an obvious dystopian society, or
through inspiring people to do it. That's the kind of thing that helps
keep someone like Dr. Doom a bad guy.
Basically I want a mentally healthy, actions speak louder than words
kind of guy who believes in himself and his code enough that he isn't
constantly filled with self-doubt and that the average person on the
street trusts and believes in(enough that only obviously crooked
politicians would screw with him.)
JLB
Jon J. Yeager
news:1143840902....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Jon J. Yeager wrote:
>>
>> Like it or not, the world around you is slowly moving towards that latter
>> model. The success of reality tv is just the tip of the iceberg.
>>
>> It doesn't make you wrong for being different. But at least acknowledge
>> that
>> you are.
>
> hearing people complain about heroes suffering psychosis, etc.
Just because something is treated realistically doesn't mean it's good
writing.
Something can be realistic and suck. Just like something can be 100%
fantastic and suck even more.
> Basically I want a mentally healthy, actions speak louder than words
> kind of guy who believes in himself and his code enough that he isn't
> constantly filled with self-doubt and that the average person on the
> street trusts and believes in(enough that only obviously crooked
> politicians would screw with him.)
Then you want Tony.
Jon
Jon J. Yeager
news:442dadbb$0$64670$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>> kind of guy who believes in himself and his code enough that he isn't
>> constantly filled with self-doubt and that the average person on the
>> street trusts and believes in(enough that only obviously crooked
>> politicians would screw with him.)
>
> Then you want Tony.
Just so we're clear, I'm talking about Tony, the RACMU regular.
Nathan Sanders
bar...@shentel.net wrote:
> Jon J. Yeager wrote:
>
> > they have that recreates any environment they want. Apparently, Klingon is
> > an actual language they sat down and created. The words actually all mean
> > something. There's a freakin' Klingon/English dictionary out there
> > somewhere.
>
> I believe it's a fan created language, that the show offically adopted.
The "fan" who created Klingon was Marc Okrand, a certified linguist
with a PhD and everything. He developed the language because
Paramount hired him to do so.
Nathan
Fallen
>"Magnus, Robot Fighter." <m...@key.com> wrote in message
>news:vcqq22diopmvomn5e...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>Actually the original BSG got ratings that Star Trek never even came
>>close too. BSG failed because it cost too damn much.
>>
>>
>
>And that would be because it was all-sugar, no brains, as is explained later
>on in the parts you snipped. ;)
>
>A smart show is likely going to be less expensive (and more interesting)
>than one that put all of its budget in the bangs and booms.
>
>Jon
>
>
Which is a completely different point to the one Magnus snipped. If BSG
was cancelled because it cost too much you can't then randomly claim 'oh
and it also had all these other things wrong with it that meant it
failed'. I also have no doubt that there is no way that Star Trek is
more realistic than BSG.
There was a second series (which was an actual failure on all counts),
novels, comics and a current revamp using the name and original ideas
that is doing very well. BSG doesn't seem to have been a failure on very
many levels at all.
Fallen.
David Johnston
>> they have that recreates any environment they want. Apparently, Klingon is
>> an actual language they sat down and created. The words actually all mean
>> something. There's a freakin' Klingon/English dictionary out there
>> somewhere.
>
>I believe it's a fan created language, that the show offically adopted.
>
Nope. It was created by a linguist for Star Trek, the Motionless
Picture.
Jon J. Yeager
news:7iiXf.12834$g76....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> Which is a completely different point to the one Magnus snipped.
Is this one of those times where you jump out of the bushes to correct
someone who wasn't talking to you, that thing you claim you never do but
can't go 10 mins in your day without doing?
Maybe if it wasn't, I would have read the rest of that.
Do you ever do anything but bait people into flamefests?
~consul
>> close too. BSG failed because it cost too damn much.
> And that would be because it was all-sugar, no brains, as is explained later
> on in the parts you snipped. ;)
> A smart show is likely going to be less expensive (and more interesting)
> than one that put all of its budget in the bangs and booms.
Then you should be watching the new BSG. Smart writing, less expensive, no 33 minutes ;) of technical jargon, very realistic military-political shenanigans.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
Since i am both an accredited Star Trek and BSG expert, I'll say for
the most part Jon is right.
In terms of realism:
The new BSG (way ahead of anything else)
ST:TOS
Various Crappy Treks
BSG
BSG 80.
Fallen
>On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 22:45:23 GMT, Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Jon J. Yeager wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Magnus, Robot Fighter." <m...@key.com> wrote in message
>>>news:vcqq22diopmvomn5e...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Actually the original BSG got ratings that Star Trek never even came
>>>>close too. BSG failed because it cost too damn much.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>And that would be because it was all-sugar, no brains, as is explained later
>>>on in the parts you snipped. ;)
>>>
>>>A smart show is likely going to be less expensive (and more interesting)
>>>than one that put all of its budget in the bangs and booms.
>>>
>>>Jon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Which is a completely different point to the one Magnus snipped. If BSG
>>was cancelled because it cost too much you can't then randomly claim 'oh
>>and it also had all these other things wrong with it that meant it
>>failed'. I also have no doubt that there is no way that Star Trek is
>>more realistic than BSG.
>>
>>There was a second series (which was an actual failure on all counts),
>>novels, comics and a current revamp using the name and original ideas
>>that is doing very well. BSG doesn't seem to have been a failure on very
>>many levels at all.
>>
>>Fallen.
>>
>>
>
>Since i am both an accredited Star Trek and BSG expert,
>
I have no idea what that means sorry?
>I'll say for
>the most part Jon is right.
>
>In terms of realism:
>
>The new BSG (way ahead of anything else)
>ST:TOS
>Various Crappy Treks
>BSG
>BSG 80.
>
>
That's just a list though, I don't really wanna spin the thread off into
a long start trek and BSG discussion cos it's a lil too nerdy for my
liking but I just don't see how Star Trek, 'especially' the Original
Series, is more realistic than BSG.
Fallen.
Fallen
>"Fallen" <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:7iiXf.12834$g76....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
>
>>Which is a completely different point to the one Magnus snipped.
>>
>>
>
>Is this one of those times where you jump out of the bushes to correct
>someone who wasn't talking to you, that thing you claim you never do but
>can't go 10 mins in your day without doing?
>
I'm a millionaire. I'm a millionaire. I'm a millionaire.
I'm right there with ya on this theory.
Fallen.
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
>
>>I'll say for
>>the most part Jon is right.
>>
>>In terms of realism:
>>
>>The new BSG (way ahead of anything else)
>>ST:TOS
>>Various Crappy Treks
>>BSG
>>BSG 80.
>>
>>
>That's just a list though, I don't really wanna spin the thread off into
>a long start trek and BSG discussion cos it's a lil too nerdy for my
>liking but I just don't see how Star Trek, 'especially' the Original
>Series, is more realistic than BSG.
>
>Fallen.
St:TOS never had Satan show up.
I have no further witnesses.
David Johnston
>>In terms of realism:
>>
>>The new BSG (way ahead of anything else)
>>ST:TOS
>>Various Crappy Treks
>>BSG
>>BSG 80.
>>
>>
>That's just a list though, I don't really wanna spin the thread off into
>a long start trek and BSG discussion cos it's a lil too nerdy for my
>liking but I just don't see how Star Trek, 'especially' the Original
>Series, is more realistic than BSG.
The original BSG had characters who had just had their entire
civilisation annihilated and by the next episode they were relaxed,
unsuspecting of danger and ready to have a good time. It also had an
organisation of robots dedicated to destroying all of humanity, with a
human member as the commander in charge of the effort.
Fallen
*grin* Okay that was pretty bad but TOS had the Greek God Apollo turn
up, that's kinda in the same area.
Fallen.
Fallen
My argument isn't that BSG is realistic, it's that 'neither' BSG or Star
Trek is realistic. TOS has a Greek God, A chase after aliens who had
stolen Spock's brain, Kirk wandering about in an antimatter universe,
people having their entire memory wiped and being normal again the next
episode and 'hippies'. TNG had the holodeck seemingly having different
rules governing it every time it appeared, a futuristic android who
can't write a simple program to include contractions in his vocabulary
and a Prime Directive which seems to be the vaguest governing law ever
imagined. Both worlds are just space soap opera.
Fallen.
David Johnston
>David Johnston wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 00:31:41 GMT, Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>In terms of realism:
>>>>
>>>>The new BSG (way ahead of anything else)
>>>>ST:TOS
>>>>Various Crappy Treks
>>>>BSG
>>>>BSG 80.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That's just a list though, I don't really wanna spin the thread off into
>>>a long start trek and BSG discussion cos it's a lil too nerdy for my
>>>liking but I just don't see how Star Trek, 'especially' the Original
>>>Series, is more realistic than BSG.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The original BSG had characters who had just had their entire
>>civilisation annihilated and by the next episode they were relaxed,
>>unsuspecting of danger and ready to have a good time. It also had an
>>organisation of robots dedicated to destroying all of humanity, with a
>>human member as the commander in charge of the effort.
>>
>>
>>
>My argument isn't that BSG is realistic, it's that 'neither' BSG or Star
>Trek is realistic. TOS has a Greek God,
I don't see the problem with that.
A chase after aliens who had
>stolen Spock's brain,
One of their worst episodes. But people generally go from the typical
episodes, not the ones that become legendary from their badness.
>Kirk wandering about in an antimatter universe,
Nah. Never did that.
>people having their entire memory wiped and being normal again the next
>episode
A simple technological issue.
>and 'hippies'.
What's the problem with hippies? There were real hippies.
TNG had the holodeck seemingly having different
>rules governing it every time it appeared, a futuristic android who
>can't write a simple program to include contractions in his vocabulary
I don't recall him ever attempting it.
>and a Prime Directive which seems to be the vaguest governing law ever
>imagined.
Oh hell no. Compare laws against obscenity to the Prime Directive and
you'll see it's very much like some real world world laws in terms of
vagueness.
>Both worlds are just space soap opera.
But that doesn't put them on the same level. The sheer and continuing
idiocy of Baltar in Battlestar Galactica is much worse from the
standpoint of "realism" than any of the things you mention because it
makes less than no internal sense. Realism is less about the
violation of physical reality than it is about emotional reality. And
while TOS didn't set a very high standard, BSG didn't meet that.
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
Funny thing is The Count Iblis 2 parter, along with "The Living
Legend" and the Ice Planet Gun episodes, are some of the more
watchable ones.