> Mr. Saylo wrote:
It is all a matter of a "willing suspension of disbelief" theater and fil=
m=20 require it to a large degree. There are many things unbelievable about
th= e=20
experience in a darkened theater - you have to be willing to step beyond
=
them=20 to allow the play or movie to affect you. What amazes me is here we
are
o=
n a=20
list devoted to playing games with little toy soldiers and ships - yet
we= =20 can't accept fthe filmic nature of a movie which deals with the same
subj= ect.
====>
There is a difference. In one case, there is (I think) little pretense of
setting a true scene. We accept from the outset that a board with some toys is
not trying to convey verisimilitude and we don't necessarily suspend
disbelief, we just play a game. Or we realize all the work will go on in our
imagination, as far as making it visual and real. Whereas with a movie, the
nature of the visual media conveys the message that the Director and his cast
will attempt to take us to this place (wherever), and make it seem real. The
actors will try to convey a reality to the characters, even though we know
them but shortly. The set will be such that it suits the nature of the movie.
I don't think FT has pretensions of convincing you of its reality. Many movies
do.
=====
How can one have ANY belief in a space game system that depicts combat=20
between more than three ships occupying points in three dimensions in a
T=
WO=20
dimensional format - it is ridiculously inaccurate! QUIT PLAYING
IMMEDIAT= ELY!=20 How can we accept a game depicting combat in the future
which depicts suc= h=20
unbelievable aspects as "anti-gravity" when it does not exist in
reality?= =20 Working hovertanks? It is laughable, LAUGHABLE I TELL YOU!
Orbital Artill= ery=20
strikes - name one that has happened in real life - Ha! Knew you could
no=
t!
====>
Tunguska, early 20th century. And it was one heck of a strike.
====
Now in that framework, we have to listen to people paste a movie about=20
unbelievability? Look past the inaccuracy - it is a convention. Look
past= the=20
filmic use of a device or weapon that is patently WRONG - they could not
=
find=20 one that was patently RIGHT. There is still good experience to be had
in
=
the=20 filmic or theatric presentation of a story about PEOPLE. As a world
cultu= re=20 we have realized that since people gathered round the fire to
describe a=20 successful hunt by dancing and singing. To deny the power of the
dramatic= =20 story to describe the human condition is ludicrous at best.
=====>
Of course, to pronounce what others should or should not like is rather
ludicrous. <*wink*>
Seriously, it seems to me that if I want to see a story about people, and the
director and the advertisments lead me to believe that is what I'm getting,
then that is what I'll evaluate it on. If the adds seem to glory in CGI, in
effects, in mood and setting created by visuals, and if there appears to be a
"reality" basis (ie they want to portray something not so far divorced from
what we know that we might bite and believe it could
be),
then if they come up short in those areas, they haven't delivered what I
thought they promised. They choose how to advertise their movie. They choose
where to spend their budget (CGI or quality of script and cast). If all
stories were about was people, we'd say "to heck with nice visuals" and we'd
just go to live theatre. In truth, film is partly about people (stories are
hard to imagine without them), but it is partly about the visual art and the
construction of worlds of artifice. And if, as I suggest, they try to
construct an almost real one, then they can expect some of us to object to
where it has weaknesses.
When I go to a movie (Myself Only Included), I seek something
interesting -
an interesting story, a fascinating perspective, something shocking or
entertaining. I don't seek to be educated about the complexities of human
relationships - life is full of that enough, thanks. I want to be
entertained and by that I mean I want (in sci fi) to be shown believable
characters (with some depth) in a constructed world (also with not too many
major flaws... and the further you step from today, the more liberty I give
you) doing something interesting and well thought out. If it seems the well
thought out part is missing, I'm disappointed.
In a message dated 3/16/00 6:43:57 PM Central Standard Time,
> Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca writes:
<< There is a difference. In one case, there is (I think) little pretense of
setting a true scene. We accept from the outset that a board with some toys is
not trying to convey verisimilitude and we don't necessarily suspend
disbelief, we just play a game. Or we realize all the work will go on in our
imagination, as far as making it visual and real. Whereas with a movie, the
nature of the visual media conveys the message that the Director and his cast
will attempt to take us to this place (wherever), and make it seem real >>
No - it never makes that claim - except in cinema verite or documentary.
Tom, It's pretty hard to follow your posts due to the odd quoting system or
whatever...
> "Thomas.Barclay" wrote:
Quoth the Adrian:
> Characters in a film have to make us believe that THEY believe
(snips)
I agree. I really enjoyed Conan The Barbarian because they were serious about
it (and I got the video and two copies of the soundtrack by Basil Polidouris);
I enjoyed Monty Python & the
Holy Grail--even though it was silly all the way
through--because it was internally consistent (and the fact that
I saw it for the first time right after my first gaming con, starting at 4am
Sunday morning, may have helped). I hated Conan the Destroyer because they
decided to add absurdity to a serious story, and it grated.
When I worked for CompuServe, I saw this alot. It usually came from a
non-standard version of MIME that the mail system sending the mail was
using.
Tom,
You may want to try turning off the text-wrap feature of your software
or manually wraping the text by hitting the return key before the 80th column.
If it looks OK to you, here is what it looks like to some of us: It is all a
matter of a "willing suspension of disbelief" theater and fil= m=20 require it
to a large degree. There are many things unbelievable about th= e=20
---
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net <mailto:bkb@beol.net>
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/
---
[quoted original message omitted]
> In message <003a01bf8fbd$b605fd60$33fb0e3f@default> "Laserlight" writes:
Conan is incredibly, unbelievably serious. *Oliver Stone* wrote the screenplay
to Conan the Barbarian. It is a stock Olly Stone Film about "paternal"
influence. It's pretty much the same in that respect as Wall Street or
Platoon.
IIRC, it was produced by Dino D. Laurentiis, always a good sign.
> I enjoyed Monty Python & the
The first time I saw Alien was after a 25-hour gaming session... I
was hallucinating wildly all the way through, lapsing between being concious
and dreaming. It's never been as good since.
> At 3:51 AM +0000 3/17/00, David Brewer wrote:
writes:
> The first time I saw Alien was after a 25-hour gaming session... I
First time I saw Alien was as a young lad of about, oh, let's say 11.
It was a double-bill after "It (They ?) Came From Within". After
ICFW, nobody batted an eye at Alien, and the theater manager made eprsonal
apologies to just about everyone in the theatre. ICFW features artificial
organs that become mind controlling parasites, and remains to this day one of
the most graphic and disturbing films I've ever seen, view only if you have a
strong stomach *and* are willing to be majorly creeped out at the ending.
Again, Alien came over as a very tame film in comparison.
Actually wasn't the Aliens pregenetor "IT: The Terror from Beyond Space"? IIRC
a mission to mars fails, a rescue misison is launched and only the captain has
survived. They take him back on the ship, finding some evidence which leads
the rescue crew to believe that he killed his own crew and disbelieve the
monster tales. But alas the creature has gotten on the ship and begins killing
the crew. It was a very scary movie to watch as a little kid and I still love
it. True to form they fight it off with.45s and Garands that were part of the
ships supplies (grenades too but oddly, no flamethrowers in this one), and
they only kill it by stuffing the remaining crew into spacesuits and draining
the atmosphere from the ship. A great flick.
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:09:01 -0800, Michael Llaneza <maserati@flash.net>
wrote:
> First time I saw Alien was as a young lad of about, oh, let's say 11.
I was 16, and it was in its first run in the theatres. I was just too young to
see it, so I took my grandmother to see it (hint: no one asks for your ID when
you take your granny to an R rated movie; oh, and in Canada kids aren't
allowed into R rated movies even with adults, that's Adult Accompanyment
rating). She loved it! *VBS*
> << There is a difference. In one case, there is (I think) little
Um, I think you give too much credit to some (many) of today's filmmakers.
Mature filmmakers realise that they are creating a fantasy even if their film
is about "real life". Many filmmakers seem to forget this and believe
their own press - and take themselves too seriously.
Tom's point about the filmmaker attempting to make his place seem real is
mostly correct, but needs to be expanded upon a bit (Tom - pardon me for
presuming...:) Now what I think (he says switching to Pontificating mode) is
that the "reality" Tom is referring to isn't OUR "real" world, but really that
the world as depicted in the film is real to the characters in the film.
Internal consistancy is THE mark of successful speculative fiction, whether it
be in a film or in a book, as far as I'm concerned. The fantastical details,
whether they be close to our reality or truely whacked out, don't really
matter as long as they make coherent sense within their own context.
Characters in a film have to make us believe that THEY believe what is going
on. They don't have to make us believe that their reality is, to use an awful
phrase, really real. This is an important distinction. Give you
an example - Starship Troopers, the movie, was drek. The
book-versus-movie
debate aside (we're busy with that one elsewhere), I think it wasn't a good
film NOT because of the issues most people complain about, but because
Verhoven completely failed to convince me that his characters believed what
was going on. There was far too much winking-and-aren't-we-clever, but
nothing else. Verhoven was trying to capture an attitude that "we're all in on
the joke", but all it turned into was the joke, and it wasn't really very
funny. This is NOT to say that a film has to be serious to be good.
There are plenty of great non-serious films. The Matrix, for example,
was
an infinitely better film, not because it was any more believable - the
basic premise of The Matrix was patently silly. But the characters in that
film completely believed what was going on, within their own context, and that
totally sucked me in. Their world held together within itself, and they
obviously believed it. SST was one long gag with the actors winking at the
camera, and playing with guns. It was amusing when I saw it, because it had
some cool scenes and neat special effects. But it certainly wasn't a good
movie.
Anyway, I'll switch off the pontificating mode, and get back to letting Tom
argue his own points ;-)