|
Here I go again, writing a Youtube comment to the recent video by MrBtongue and ending up with a blog post.
While I agree that magic shouldn't be completely predictable I hate it when any sort of plot hooks, sci-fi doodads and supernatural elements are overused to suddenly change to story. It's like with a good detective story, you need to show the audience the truth, at least in some form, while hiding it just well enough to confuse us. Perfect examples are the Usual Suspects and Twelve Monkeys.
I haven't read Game of Thrones but it seems really cheap in this aspect, he just makes up magic or creates characters whenever he needs them, making me care less because there is no finality, the plot can change at any point just because of new characters.
Concerning the popularity of magic and sci-fi, it's mostly because publishers don't want to risk original IPs. It's easy to sell a shitty sci-fi flick with no resemblance to the source material if you market it to the fandom of the source. And to be frank almost all fantasy films I've seen are mediocre at best.
Probably the only good, traditional fantasy I’ve seen is Solomon Kane (as an honest fantasy film, I can't comment on the adaptation quality), other than that it’s fables (for example Pan's Labyrinth, Hero, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) or comedies (Princess Bride, Stardust, Hansel & Gretel, Mummy). With sci-fi films it’s often the case of slapping some poorly thought-out elements on a mundane story (Divergent, Next, Avatar, Host, Source Code) or TV shows drawing us with an interesting premise and then completely failing to deliver anything but a soap opera (Falling Skies, Revolution, Outcasts, Terra Nova, 100, Continuum, Defiance, Defying Gravity).
In all honesty, sometimes I wish fantasy and sci-fi wasn’t so popular among the publishers, that way we could avoid having lunatics like Jar Jar Abrams devour our childhood memories of old sci-fi, turn hardcore source material into PG-13 pop culture piece (Kick-Ass) or bastardize the source material in general, as it’s been for example with P.K. Dick’s works. Let’s hope it’s just a phase…
 
|
I don't think you can make any comments of game of thrones of you actually haven't read it and basing your judgements on your vague knowledge of the story.
|
In the video he's talking about magic "overload" in pop culture. I've seen all four seasons of Game of Thrones and compared the show to what the wiki says about the plot of the books - I wasn't commenting on the books, just on the nature of "suspense" some people like, especially magic and death. When a character dies, another one usually takes its place in the plot, or the author introduces more characters. For example+ Show Spoiler + Catelyn Stark being reanimated and so on.
Firefly was short due to early cancellation but that’s a show where the number of characters you care about is fairly limited and as such death creates bigger suspense. A typical problem of TV shows is starting a new season with a whole bunch of new characters. A lot of the times you’re trying to figure out a mystery, who out of the existing characters might be involved but the author decides to just make up another character, usually appearing at the last possible moment and saving the day.
|
On July 27 2014 23:18 Zax19 wrote:
While I agree that magic shouldn't be completely predictable I hate it when any sort of plot hooks, sci-fi doodads and supernatural elements are overused to suddenly change to story.
You mean Deus Ex Machina.
On July 27 2014 23:18 Zax19 wrote:
It's like with a good detective story, you need to show the audience the truth, at least in some form, while hiding it just well enough to confuse us. Perfect examples are the Usual Suspects and Twelve Monkeys.
I disagree. It depends on the focus of the story. If it's a traditional murder mystery then some works do benefit from having the solution hiding in plain sight so to speak, but it's in no way essential.
The best detective stories thrive on rich character studies and interactions.
On July 27 2014 23:18 Zax19 wrote:
I haven't read Game of Thrones but it seems really cheap in this aspect, he just makes up magic or creates characters whenever he needs them, making me care less because there is no finality, the plot can change at any point just because of new characters.
This isn't a fair criticism, the books are much more rich and detailed than the show. There's very little magic and it's used sparingly.
On July 27 2014 23:18 Zax19 wrote:
Concerning the popularity of magic and sci-fi, it's mostly because publishers don't want to risk original IPs. It's easy to sell a shitty sci-fi flick with no resemblance to the source material if you market it to the fandom of the source. And to be frank almost all fantasy films I've seen are mediocre at best.
Probably the only good, traditional fantasy I’ve seen is Solomon Kane (as an honest fantasy film, I can't comment on the adaptation quality), other than that it’s fables (for example Pan's Labyrinth, Hero, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) or comedies (Princess Bride, Stardust, Hansel & Gretel, Mummy). With sci-fi films it’s often the case of slapping some poorly thought-out elements on a mundane story (Divergent, Next, Avatar, Host, Source Code) or TV shows drawing us with an interesting premise and then completely failing to deliver anything but a soap opera (Falling Skies, Revolution, Outcasts, Terra Nova, 100, Continuum, Defiance, Defying Gravity).
I feel the issue here is that you haven't actually seen a great deal of Sci-Fi. There is a great field of work out there that IS good. You just have to steer away from mainstream cable television and dig a little deeper to find quality, subversive shows that will whet your appetite.
Try Utopia, Black Mirror, Les Revenants, Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes. From there launch to other recent shows such as Orphan Black and The Strain, if you liked Buffy/Angel or comic horror.
Don't even get me started on film. There's a vast array of intelligent, quality Sci-Fi from the past 60+ years to go through.
It would also pay to recognise that mediocrity is ubiquitous not only in the Sci-Fi and Fantasy genre, but in all genres, across all mediums. You could supplement Sci-Fi and Fantasy for Drama in your argument and I wouldn't bat an eyelid. The industry has been lacklustre in the past in all things, but there are some promising signs through independent film and television for the future - particularly out of the UK and Europe, and with Netflix + co. pushing the envelope.
|
I haven't read Game of Thrones but I'm gonna make up some random criticism of it based on what I expect it to be instead of what it is.
That sounds like the fundation to a very sound debate.
|
On July 28 2014 23:39 Nebuchad wrote:
I haven't read Game of Thrones but I'm gonna make up some random criticism of it based on what I expect it to be instead of what it is.
That sounds like the fundation to a very sound debate.
Yeah and it sounds like you thoroughly read through everything just like in a typical debate. Good job!
|
I don't know what you consider a great deal of SF, I've seen more than 75 TV shows and 300 SF films (I'm counting only the ones I actually have rated somewhere, I've forgotten a bunch probably). Again, the comment was mainly concerning the genre crossover and how popular SF and fantasy is now – not all but most recent productions use those elements on very superficial level (see soap operas like Falling Skies). This is even worse in recent anime production. And of course there is the issue of what I consider good and what you consider good  .
Black Mirro is pretty good, Orphan Black is ok. I also liked Cowboy Bebop, GitS, Ergo Proxy, Ginga Eiyuu Densetsu, Babylon 5, Star Trek: The Next Generation, the new BSG and Firefly. Above average stuff would be Dark Angel, Farscape, Dollhouse and Terminator, the rest from what I've seen is average at best.
From films I liked Brazil, A Scanner Darkly, Watchmen, Fifth Element, Eternal Sunshine, Twelve Monkeys, Terminator 2, Her, Strange Days, Open Your Eyes, Quiet Earth, Priest, 2001, 2010, Jin-Roh, Thirteenth Floor, Fountain, Animatrix, Chronicles of Riddick, Dark City, Donnie Darko, Matrix, Truman Show, K-PAX, a ton of Czech stuff… Overarching theme? Most of it is older.
|
On July 29 2014 00:01 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2014 23:39 Nebuchad wrote:
I haven't read Game of Thrones but I'm gonna make up some random criticism of it based on what I expect it to be instead of what it is.
That sounds like the fundation to a very sound debate. Yeah and it sounds like you thoroughly read through everything just like in a typical debate. Good job!
I have. It doesn't expand on this bit, goes on to other directions. I'm reacting to this bit. Why are you complaining exactly?
|
On July 29 2014 00:50 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2014 00:01 PanN wrote:On July 28 2014 23:39 Nebuchad wrote:
I haven't read Game of Thrones but I'm gonna make up some random criticism of it based on what I expect it to be instead of what it is.
That sounds like the fundation to a very sound debate. Yeah and it sounds like you thoroughly read through everything just like in a typical debate. Good job! I have. It doesn't expand on this bit, goes on to other directions. I'm reacting to this bit. Why are you complaining exactly?
On July 28 2014 17:01 Zax19 wrote:In the video he's talking about magic "overload" in pop culture. I've seen all four seasons of Game of Thrones and compared the show to what the wiki says about the plot of the books - I wasn't commenting on the books, just on the nature of "suspense" some people like, especially magic and death. When a character dies, another one usually takes its place in the plot, or the author introduces more characters. For example + Show Spoiler + Catelyn Stark being reanimated and so on.
|
Okay, so, my answer is: you're wrong, he doesn't just make up magic and create characters whenever he needs them, there is a constant finality in Game of Thrones.
Which you might notice one day if you read the books.
See how that's not a very sound debate? :/
|
I stopped reading "A Song of Ice and Fire" after having read the 3rd book of the series (this was about 5 years ago), it seemed to me it was slowly becoming some kind of a giant soap opera and also the same things mentioned by the OP were quite annoying.
|
On July 29 2014 00:56 Nebuchad wrote:
Okay, so, my answer is: you're wrong, he doesn't just make up magic and create characters whenever he needs them, there is a constant finality in Game of Thrones.
Which you might notice one day if you read the books.
See how that's not a very sound debate? :/
If I have to read the book to see the constant finality in the TV show, then the TV show is not doing it's job. Which makes the criticism of OP valid.
The TV show is a separate product. It shares the same foundation, but it must be able to stand on its own. If the TV show by itself is not a good product, criticism on it can be valid without knowledge of the book.
You are trying to connect the book with the tv show, so you can discredit any criticism on the tv show as "not sound" if the critic has not read the book. This is not valid.
|
There's always people that will complain about this or that. Some people might enjoy what you don't like, others will agree with you. You can't please everyone.
It's not "overusing" it if people like it. True, it might be a today's fad, but that doesn't make it good or bad, per se.
You might enjoy the movie "The Man from Earth".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
