17 KiB
[D] Rationally Writing 23 - The Force Awakens vs Rogue One
-
Author: u/DaystarEld Pokémon Professor*
-
Score: 16
-
Created: 2017-02-04T04:59:23
Post:
Comments:
u/Kuiper [+6] (10 hours later)
To add to some of your remarks about the quintuple geocide in The Force Awakens (and the Stalin quote):
Fiction is an illusion that we willingly participate in.
If I open up the newspaper, and read, "Bob Smith died in a car crash," that's an objective fact. If I open up a novel, and read on page 1, "Bob Smith died in a car crash," that's objectively non-factual. It is a fiction. And because it's a fiction, I can't say that it's objectively a good or bad thing. What matters in a novel isn't the objective facts (because there are none; this is fiction); what matters here is my subjective experience. "My subjective experience is the most important thing" is something that isn't true of reality, but it is arguably true of fiction.
If Bob Smith is a real person, then his death is objectively a bad thing whether I knew him or not. The universe doesn't need me to "believe" that Bob Smith died for that to be true. However, if Bob Smith is a character in a fictional story, my belief is a reader is arguably the only thing that matters.
If Bob Smith dies on page 150 of a novel, and pages 1 through 149 are spent portraying Bob Smith as a person whose behavior is consistent with what I've identified as human behavior, then when I read, "Bob Smith died in a car crash," that's an objectively non-factual, but I have an experience that is subjective. I know that Bob Smith didn't really die, because he never actually existed. However, I've bought into the the idea that Bob Smith is a person, and as such, I can subjectively experience Bob's death as though he were a real person, or at least an approximation of one. If he dies on page 150, that effect is probably much stronger than if he died on page 1. And if he dies in book 5 of a long-running series where I've spent a lot of time getting to know about Bob's various personality quirks and who he is as a character, the impact is probably going to be greater, because the more I read about Bob, the more I allow myself to be "convinced" of the fiction that "Bob Smith is a person."
The deaths of real people don't have to be "justified" in this way, because I already know that they're real. I can objectively say that a hundred Chinese people dying in an industrial accident is worse than my neighbor dying, and nobody has to take the time to convince me that "hey, those people who died in China are real people, just like your neighbor," because I already know/believe that. But for me to "believe" the fictional death of people on a movie screen, that requires a bit of self-deception. I'm going to willingly suspend my disbelief to a certain extent, but the filmmaker has to meet me halfway. If you say, "Bam, five planets were just destroyed, and that's terrible," in my view, you haven't done a proper job of meeting me halfway; that's putting the burden entirely on my suspension of disbelief, and I can only offer so much of that, especially as we get closer to the end of the meaning. (You don't have to "earn" a beginning, but you do have to earn a climax.) I didn't even know that these planets existed, so how could they possibly feel real? In Star Wars (A New Hope), I don't really know much about Alderaan, but the first half of the movie has done a good job of convincing me that Princess Leia is a person, and so when I see her sadness, that makes the destruction of Alderan feel "real" in a way that the 5-planet destruction in The Force Awakens didn't.
To get more at the Stalin quote, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic:"
One way to interpret this is literally: increasing the scope of the destruction causes us to feel less bad about it. By this logic, if TFA's "tragedy" had involved the destruction of only 3 planets instead of 5, it would have been "more tragic." But I don't think that the integer really has anything to do with it. I think that the Stalin quote is actually something that you can derive from the idea that "specificity is truth."
If you tell me, on page 1, "Timmy died," that's going to make me less sad than if you told me, "Timmy, who loved reading fantasy novels and was about to start the sixth grade, died one afternoon when a congenital respiratory condition caused his lungs to collapes inside of his chest." The second one is "sadder" because it is more specific. The quintuple geocide in TFA feeling less impactful than the death of a specific character. However, I'd argue that this has to do more with specificity than actual quantity.
Consider the two following statements:
Bob Smith died last Tuesday.
or
Twelve million people died on Alderanian. Children, their parents, and those without families. Alderaan was home to many: some loyal to the Empire, some sympathetic to the rebels, and many indifferent to the political situation, instead focused more on the difficulties of their own lives. An entire planet full of people, each with their own personal ambitions, half of them sleeping and hidden from the light of their sun, the other half scurrying about, trying to fulfill their own personal ambitions the moment that the planetary death ray hit. All of those people, each ready to forge another day of pleasures or regrets, they were all silenced in a single instant.
If you'll forgive the second of these for being a bit overwrought, which would you say is more "sad?" I'd go with the latter, which would contradict the idea that "one death is sadder than a million."
Now, obviously, the larger the scope, the harder it is to make it specific. And if we're given zero contextual details, it's easier for us to picture the death of one person than it is to picture the death of a million people, hence one feeling more "real" (or "specific") than the other. And even when we do provide details, it's easier for us to make the death of one person feel more personal and intimate and specific than the death of millions. However, it's not as simple as, "Larger number of people died, therefore it's less sad." If the movie had spent more time explaining the stakes to me, or even given me any time to comprehend the fact that "Hey, these are five planets, all teeming with life and people who have lives," the quintuple geocide would have had more impact.
I also feel obliged to mention that there is nothing inherently tragic about planetary destruction. I mean, many planets are destroyed all of the time in our own galaxy whenever a star goes supernova (or any other number of celestial phenomena occur), and we don't get particularly torn up about that. The destruction of a planet is only sad to the extent that we care about what (or who) is on that planet. Once we comprehend that the planet is home to a population of people (lives that we regard as having value), then it becomes a tragedy, but until we really comprehend that fact, the destruction of the planet itself doesn't have any real impact.
u/DaystarEld [+4] Pokémon Professor (16 hours later)
Well said. This particularly is something that could have used more explanation:
If you'll forgive the second of these for being a bit overwrought, which would you say is more "sad?" I'd go with the latter, which would contradict the idea that "one death is sadder than a million."
Usually what it boils down to is just how much detail and time did we spend with them. It's easier to make a single character feel more real, but it's absolutely possible to make the loss of a whole planet feel more impactful, but it requires getting to know the "civilization" or "race" through constant contact and caring for individuals in it, even if none of the individuals are known as much as an individual character might be. All the smaller interactions add up to a wider feeling of empathy.
u/CouteauBleu [+2] We are the Empire. (a day later)
I felt a tiny bit more about the 5 planets destruction in TFA, because I actually could see people on these planets "crying out in terror then being silenced". Of course, Rogue One had the best Death Star scenes for the same reason.
Otherwise, good points.
u/oliwhail [+5] Omake-Maximizing AGI (a day later)
Ever since I watched TFA, I have wanted to write a scene of Rey responding to Kylo's pitch with "I've literally never done this before and I'm winning, sooo... how's that Dark Side thing working out for you?"
u/DaystarEld [+6] Pokémon Professor (a day later)
Yeah, the Dark Side kind of loses its only appeal if its champion can't even stop a couple people who literally never picked up a lightsaber before.
u/ZeroNihilist [+4] (3 days later)
My take on Kylo Ren is that he's basically the doubting evil character. Since the Force is nebulous faith-based space magic, the fact that he is in conflicted greatly lessens his power.
I'm hoping there's going to be a scene in Episode 8 where Kylo Ren starts to go into one of his violent tantrums (as seen in Episode 7), but then masters himself and crosses into cold, calculating rage. Basically, make the Dark Side Limit Break sociopathy (just as the Light Side Limit Break is equanimity).
It'd make a nice parallel to Rey's training under Luke, and would provide character development which is otherwise going to be hard to come by ("We sent him away to be trained in evil, and he came back slightly more angry than he left!").
I just really hope they don't end the series with Kylo Ren being redeemed. I suppose that good has to triumph in the end, but let him fight to the death for his beliefs rather than be persuaded. Because honestly, if he gets persuaded by Finn or Rey after rejecting and killing his own damn father and then going to Evil-Space-Wizard Camp, they've completely undercut the character they set up in the first movie.
u/DaystarEld [+2] Pokémon Professor (3 days later)
I'm hoping there's going to be a scene in Episode 8 where Kylo Ren starts to go into one of his violent tantrums (as seen in Episode 7), but then masters himself and crosses into cold, calculating rage. Basically, make the Dark Side Limit Break sociopathy (just as the Light Side Limit Break is equanimity).
That would be pretty awesome, yeah. Kind of like the Avada Kedavra 2.0.
u/Gworn [+5] (3 days later)
One thing that you both didn't bring up, but that reliably annoys me, are the battle tactics employed by the good and bad guys both.
They always tend to be astonishingly bad in any science fiction movies or TV shows.
If something takes place in our current time, the directors/producers generally get professional advice from actual military or SWAT personnel. Sometimes the background SWAT teams are even played by actual real-life SWAT teams. That gives it a plausibility that is missing in Sci-Fi.
If the characters use lasers, all of that apparently doesn't matter anymore. It's not impossible to think about for a few minutes "How would people fight against opponents with these futuristic weapons?"
Everyone else in the theater is enjoying themselves because of the lasers and explosions and I'm just screaming in my head for characters to get in cover or try to outflank the enemy.
Same thing applies to space battles. Just emulate actual WW1/2 sea or air battles if you want something more visually appealing than what realistic space battles would be, that's fine. But they're not even doing that. They're fighting space battles like 5-year-olds play-act them.
u/DaystarEld [+2] Pokémon Professor (3 days later)
Good points. I also often find the space battles frustrating when considering the axis they take place on: you always see these ships lined up in a visually pleasing way, with the star destroyers all facing the same direction or at least in the same rotation, while the Rebel force ships do the same thing on the opposite side... like they're tanks that are all on the ground and have to cover the distance between them head-on, rather than, I don't know, attacking them from above? Or below? Or behind?
Granted this is probably a bit of awareness that growing up on books like Ender's Game and playing X-Wing vs TIE Fighter helps in, but it's hard to unsee just how unimaginative the writers/directors are for space battles.
u/blanktextbox [+2] (4 days later)
I was expecting this to have a little less Star Wars fan perspective and a little more writer and rationalist perspective. For example, at one point Alexander mentioned that the scene on Han's freighter with the monsters and smugglers was weak but didn't elaborate, where to me that's an opportunity to consider things like why that scene exists or became a weak one, and what alternatives could have made it stronger or no longer necessary for the story. Or that Rogue One's first few acts are troubled: I came into the episode agreeing, but came out without understanding it any differently.
I guess I think of your show as being about exploration of and advice for storytelling from the rational perspective, and felt this conversation walked away from that ground a bit. Not to say it was absent, of course, between The Force and Idiot Balls and more. Overall I really enjoyed the episode and would definitely like to hear others like it. Since you asked for leads: both the Alien and the Matrix franchises could be fertile ground, Paprika and Inception invite comparison, and I wonder about comparing/contrasting authors with suitably adjacent work but have no examples in mind.
Also, I have to say I disagree with you on the use of Vader. I rather disliked his appearance at the end. He was there to contain the plans and there's a guy holding out a disk in the room with him, and he simply doesn't notice. He Force-pulls half a dozen guns at once but fails to pull on the disk when he's reaching the end of the room and it's in plain sight. It doesn't sit right with me. On another level, A New Hope opens with stormtroopers breaching the ship and taking losses as they exchange blasterfire, but now we know that just minutes before Vader was an overwhelming force all on his own, so why didn't he take point on the boarding action?
u/DaystarEld [+1] Pokémon Professor (5 days later)
I was expecting this to have a little less Star Wars fan perspective and a little more writer and rationalist perspective... Or that Rogue One's first few acts are troubled: I came into the episode agreeing, but came out without understanding it any differently.
Very fair criticism, we'll definitely try to keep to more of a rationalist analysis in future reviews :) Since the editing was kept to a minimal and no one seems to mind that, maybe we can let the episodes go even longer and allow us more time to get into more of those deeper discussions.
Since you asked for leads: both the Alien and the Matrix franchises could be fertile ground
Great ideas! There's definitely a lot to unpack in the Matrix series, both for what it did so well and what went terribly, terribly wrong.
Also, I have to say I disagree with you on the use of Vader. I rather disliked his appearance at the end. He was there to contain the plans and there's a guy holding out a disk in the room with him, and he simply doesn't notice. He Force-pulls half a dozen guns at once but fails to pull on the disk when he's reaching the end of the room and it's in plain sight. It doesn't sit right with me.
Oh that definitely bothered me too, but I kind of assumed that it was out of his range. It's never made quite clear how far people can reach with force pulling. Does it have to be line of sight? Is it harder to "grasp" it if it's moving? I often wondered in Empire Strikes Back why Vader didn't just grab Luke when he lets himself plummet in Cloud City.
The novel of Rogue One at least shows that he tried:
The security door opened a mere crack and rebel hands shoved the tape through. Vader reached through life and matter and air and by will alone he pulled. He fueled his will with rage and fear and need. It was enough to tear the rebel from the door and drop him at Vader's feet.
But it was not enough to claim the tape.
But I agree that while watching it it seemed strange that he wouldn't do so. Either way, emotionally I think the scene worked very well to portray Vader as an implacable force. If they just made the soldier with the plans farther along the corridor, out of sight, that probably would have helped.
On another level, A New Hope opens with stormtroopers breaching the ship and taking losses as they exchange blasterfire, but now we know that just minutes before Vader was an overwhelming force all on his own, so why didn't he take point on the boarding action?
Maybe he was recharging his force batteries. Or his literal batteries, come to think of it :P
u/DaystarEld [+1] Pokémon Professor (7 seconds later)
Hey all, this week we do our first review by comparing the various rationalities and irrationalities of Star Wars: The Force Awakens and Rogue One, along with general things they liked and disliked about the movies.
Hope you enjoy it, and feel free to let us know if there are other things you want us to review and dissect!