4 ms·

Totally agree. I think it's related to the "Suspension of disbelief" theory, where audiences are Ok with things that are not realistic as long as they make sen

by javchz 3y ago

Totally agree. I think it's related to the "Suspension of disbelief" theory, where audiences are Ok with things that are not realistic as long as they make sense in that universe. But it's like an uncanny valley, where the more realistic you try to be, the more critical the audience will be, and less likely are to turn off that disbelief contract between audience and authors. A good example would be the Midichlorians thing. Trying to make magic more scientific and realistic ironically makes it less believable to the audience.

krapp 3y ago
This is why I sometimes like to argue that Star Wars is a harder science fiction universe than Star Trek (at least comparing onscreen canon.) Space-wizards notwithstanding (which ST has plenty of anyway), Star Trek tries to explain too much, and pays little to no attention to actual science and it comes off seeming silly as a result. Meanwhile, in the Millennium Falcon, you just pull the lever and spacetime goes brrr. No bullshit about subspace, inverse tachyon pulses, dilithium crystals, or negative space wedgies. It's seems realistic in ways Star Trek doesn't.
- rasz 3y ago
  > lever and spacetime goes brrr but then you have WW2 bombing runs in space, spaceships with gravity fed bomb hatches! dogfights with guns that miss all the time and are unable to autoaim, hilarious chase scenes ...
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
    Why doesn't the rebellion build missiles out of small hyperspace-capable ships. Just point them at capital ships and hit go. According to the last jedi, this would be crazy effective.
  - krapp 3y ago
    And Star Trek is basically naval combat in space, with ships flying ridiculously close to one another, dogfights with weapons that miss all the time and are unable to autoaim, etc. Star Trek ships bank in space just like planes, same as in Star Wars. One of the most beloved episodes of the original series had the crew of the Enterprise keeping quiet so they didn't trip Romulan space sonar, because they literally just filed the serial numbers off a submarine movie. Neither is more realistic than the other when it comes to portraying space combat, but at least in Star Wars it doesn't look like wargamers chipping away at each another's HP until a ship explodes.
    - korse 3y ago
      Obligatory plug for space combat in the Expanse.
      - Insanity 3y ago
        Have not seen the series yet, but looking forward to it! Currently reading through the books (book 6 atm) and want to finish the book series prior to starting the Prime series. :)
        nathants 3y ago
        read the books, skip the series. instead watch youtube compilations of vfx shots from the series. there is some good stuff there.
      - runnerup 3y ago
        It’s better but far from perfect. The Expanse also totally missed that there’s no such thing as stealth in space due to IR emissions from any life support.
      - generalizations 3y ago
        And battlestar galactica.
syntheweave 3y ago
I'm actually in the midst of a Reddit argument about what the anime "BNA" is about, which really comes down to the premises of what justifies suspension of disbelief. It's a Studio Trigger show, and they are known for adding in a lot of over the top elements with subtextual justifications that give love-it-or-hate-it reactions. But with this one, it seems like audiences had no idea how to read the subtext and took it to be "Zootopia racism allegory." So the reading of the rest of the text was completely thrown off and ability to suspend disbelief was lost. Most reviews, even from critics who should have the necessary cultural background, say the writing makes no sense or is contradictory. The actual subtext is "Modern Japan's History". Which, if you know Trigger shows well, you know they've done before in Kill La Kill. And with this reading, and a little knowledge of the various events, it makes perfect sense what is going on, even if the specifics are pretty tangled: the use of traditional mythical creatures, re-opening to the West, the coming of Christian missionaries, etc. There's a main plot, but it discusses these things mostly in episodic fashion, loosely repurposing various symbolic elements to suit the scene. The way in which this repurposing occurs has a nice way of merging otherwise disparate themes into a tapestry of resemblances. That's the centerpiece of the storytelling, and I think they did a marvelous job of weaving it all together and still maintaining a character-driven surface text in a 12 episode series. It's rewatchable, and you can spot new readings in it each time. Nothing is being wasted in the writing. But...it's also clearly inaccessible, going by the reviews. Nobody who wanted another Zootopia wants to be told that actually, there was one episode roughly about that, but also ones about disenfranchised war veterans, exploitation of the poor, the influence of cults on politics, etc. The way in which it rushes through all of those things without time to add a lot of "narrative arrows" for every theme ensured that people were never going to follow along well, especially not foreign audiences. Realism, in the end, comes down to what you believe reality is supposed to be, and that tends to be something an audience older than about 8 years of age is burdened with when they try to experience a story: they can't read it as anything but what they know is normal. So adding magic or magic-indistinguishable technology as a symbolic component - a "wish away the problem" - often does work better than most other strategies of discussing reality. The extra indirection allows profundities to slip into the viewer's mind. But when the premises are unclear to the audience, magic and other fantastical elements also tends to get the reactions BNA got - "I don't know what this is about, and also, why isn't it doing the thing it is about." And from there the nitpicking about how it's unrealistic or "forced" writing sets in.

by javchz 3y ago

krapp 3y ago

This is why I sometimes like to argue that Star Wars is a harder science fiction universe than Star Trek (at least comparing onscreen canon.) Space-wizards notwithstanding (which ST has plenty of anyway), Star Trek tries to explain too much, and pays little to no attention to actual science and it comes off seeming silly as a result. Meanwhile, in the Millennium Falcon, you just pull the lever and spacetime goes brrr. No bullshit about subspace, inverse tachyon pulses, dilithium crystals, or negative space wedgies. It's seems realistic in ways Star Trek doesn't.

rasz 3y ago
> lever and spacetime goes brrr but then you have WW2 bombing runs in space, spaceships with gravity fed bomb hatches! dogfights with guns that miss all the time and are unable to autoaim, hilarious chase scenes ...
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  Why doesn't the rebellion build missiles out of small hyperspace-capable ships. Just point them at capital ships and hit go. According to the last jedi, this would be crazy effective.
- krapp 3y ago
  And Star Trek is basically naval combat in space, with ships flying ridiculously close to one another, dogfights with weapons that miss all the time and are unable to autoaim, etc. Star Trek ships bank in space just like planes, same as in Star Wars. One of the most beloved episodes of the original series had the crew of the Enterprise keeping quiet so they didn't trip Romulan space sonar, because they literally just filed the serial numbers off a submarine movie. Neither is more realistic than the other when it comes to portraying space combat, but at least in Star Wars it doesn't look like wargamers chipping away at each another's HP until a ship explodes.
  - korse 3y ago
    Obligatory plug for space combat in the Expanse.
    - Insanity 3y ago
      Have not seen the series yet, but looking forward to it! Currently reading through the books (book 6 atm) and want to finish the book series prior to starting the Prime series. :)
      - nathants 3y ago
        read the books, skip the series. instead watch youtube compilations of vfx shots from the series. there is some good stuff there.
    - runnerup 3y ago
      It’s better but far from perfect. The Expanse also totally missed that there’s no such thing as stealth in space due to IR emissions from any life support.
    - generalizations 3y ago
      And battlestar galactica.

syntheweave 3y ago

I'm actually in the midst of a Reddit argument about what the anime "BNA" is about, which really comes down to the premises of what justifies suspension of disbelief. It's a Studio Trigger show, and they are known for adding in a lot of over the top elements with subtextual justifications that give love-it-or-hate-it reactions. But with this one, it seems like audiences had no idea how to read the subtext and took it to be "Zootopia racism allegory." So the reading of the rest of the text was completely thrown off and ability to suspend disbelief was lost. Most reviews, even from critics who should have the necessary cultural background, say the writing makes no sense or is contradictory. The actual subtext is "Modern Japan's History". Which, if you know Trigger shows well, you know they've done before in Kill La Kill. And with this reading, and a little knowledge of the various events, it makes perfect sense what is going on, even if the specifics are pretty tangled: the use of traditional mythical creatures, re-opening to the West, the coming of Christian missionaries, etc. There's a main plot, but it discusses these things mostly in episodic fashion, loosely repurposing various symbolic elements to suit the scene. The way in which this repurposing occurs has a nice way of merging otherwise disparate themes into a tapestry of resemblances. That's the centerpiece of the storytelling, and I think they did a marvelous job of weaving it all together and still maintaining a character-driven surface text in a 12 episode series. It's rewatchable, and you can spot new readings in it each time. Nothing is being wasted in the writing. But...it's also clearly inaccessible, going by the reviews. Nobody who wanted another Zootopia wants to be told that actually, there was one episode roughly about that, but also ones about disenfranchised war veterans, exploitation of the poor, the influence of cults on politics, etc. The way in which it rushes through all of those things without time to add a lot of "narrative arrows" for every theme ensured that people were never going to follow along well, especially not foreign audiences. Realism, in the end, comes down to what you believe reality is supposed to be, and that tends to be something an audience older than about 8 years of age is burdened with when they try to experience a story: they can't read it as anything but what they know is normal. So adding magic or magic-indistinguishable technology as a symbolic component - a "wish away the problem" - often does work better than most other strategies of discussing reality. The extra indirection allows profundities to slip into the viewer's mind. But when the premises are unclear to the audience, magic and other fantastical elements also tends to get the reactions BNA got - "I don't know what this is about, and also, why isn't it doing the thing it is about." And from there the nitpicking about how it's unrealistic or "forced" writing sets in.