Author Topic: Wonder Woman  (Read 2231 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12476
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #45 on: June 20, 2017, 06:38:53 am »
Why would that surprise you?  Is it because it's set in a fictional kingdom instead of a fictional advertising firm?

Yes.

Quote
The artistic merit of the program is top-notch.

As I said above, I don't doubt that there is quality there.

Quote
And yet I  have this hunch that you feel all of this could be greatly improved if it was set in an advertising firm.

Setting it in a real setting would make it different, not 'improved'.  And my main point, again, is that fantasy sets a frame of reference that is different than reality.  As I pointed out in my own counter-example, elements of fantasy alone don't do this at least for me.

I didn't enjoy 'Magnolia' but there were elements of fantasy there, mixed in with a story based in reality.

Quote
My point is that it is a matter of execution, completely independent of genre.

Why would I, as a viewer, be more likely to empathize or identify with a fictional advertising executive than a fictional lord?  Why would I as a viewer feel more emotionally invested in a fictional drug-lab operator than a fictional lord? 

Maybe because the frame of reference of reality eliminates the possibility of supernatural outcomes, and brings the lives of the characters closer to our own ?
 
I can't speak to why your experiences here differ from mine, I just find it hard to fathom that there could be fantastical stories that have the ability to affect us as much as realistic ones.

 
Quote
As a viewer, I strongly feel that the shows that push your willingness to suspend disbelief the hardest aren't science fiction or fantasy.  It's shows that purport to depict realism but utterly fail that are the toughest to suspend disbelief.  The computer technology fails on espionage shows that depict "hacking", or the science fails on forensic dramas like CSI, for example. I have never tried watching an episode of House MD in a room full of doctors, but I have watched an episode of CSI with engineers. They would have let Doc Brown talk about his Flux Capacitor all day, but the howls of laughter as the CSI guys discussed the possibility that the dead guy might have been electrocuted by his TV remote control made me feel quite silly for even watching it.

It sounds like CSI is a kind of fantasy.

Quote
There's no such thing as magic or dragons, so you can't "get it wrong", and your audience knows that and they're willing to buy in to the story you want to tell them.  But if you're setting out to depict "real", you can definitely "get it wrong", and when you do fail, it is immersion-breaking for your audience.
 

Your examples, though, are still mostly entertainment although maybe less trivial.  The key to me is that you said that you avoided some works because they made you feel bad.  There are human emotions that are not related to suspense that can make you want to watch, even if they fill you with dread.

The reality show 'Intervention' was a tough one.  I think that may be an example of popular art acting as a salve to popular reality.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12476
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #46 on: June 20, 2017, 06:42:34 am »
The audience gets what the audience wants. Escapism, be it musicals or beach party movies or frat-house comedies or whatever, has always been popular in movies.  And plays and books and stories and myths going back for a very long time.

And the audience wants popcorn and Coca Cola.  Sometimes, for some reason, they want 'Intervention'

Quote
I guess I really need to know what you mean by escapism before I can really respond. To me, the word "escapism" has a connotation of lightheartedness and inconsequentiality. Seeking refuge from things that are complex or stressful or scary.

Quote

the tendency to seek distraction and relief from unpleasant realities, especially by seeking entertainment or engaging in fantasy.

Quote
But, if by "escapism" you mean anything that's not in a "real world" setting, then I disagree.  If you feel that movies like "Gattaca" are escapist because they're in settings that aren't "real", then I think that movies like that actually have a far greater potential to explore ideas that simply couldn't be presented adequately in a "real" setting.
 

I suppose that's true, but I'm still interested in the tough stuff.  For me, it's nurturing and edifying.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #47 on: June 20, 2017, 09:14:11 am »
Setting it in a real setting would make it different, not 'improved'.  And my main point, again, is that fantasy sets a frame of reference that is different than reality.  As I pointed out in my own counter-example, elements of fantasy alone don't do this at least for me.
 
(...)

Maybe because the frame of reference of reality eliminates the possibility of supernatural outcomes, and brings the lives of the characters closer to our own ?

And why would Don Draper's 1960s ad firm or Walter White's meth lab be any closer to my life than the chilly halls of Winterfell? That stuff isn't real either. It might be somebody's vision of a reality that might exist somewhere, but it might as well be a fantasy world.  I watched Winter's Bone, and quite enjoyed it... but the depiction of life in the Missouri Ozarks didn't bring the characters closer to me... it was a completely alien culture that could have just as easily been in another century or another planet.   Maybe life in the Ozarks really is like that, or maybe it isn't. I wouldn't know. It was an interesting setting, for sure, but not because it was real or relatable but more the opposite.  What made Winter's Bone work for me was a compelling character facing a suspenseful situation.  If I hadn't become emotionally connected to Jennifer Lawrence's character, it wouldn't have worked as a film.

The idea that I'm trying to express, and that I think you might be struggling with, is that the qualities that make Don Draper or Walter White or Ree Dolly connect with the audience aren't a result of the setting.  We become emotionally invested in characters that speak to universal human experiences, and these transcend genre.


I can't speak to why your experiences here differ from mine, I just find it hard to fathom that there could be fantastical stories that have the ability to affect us as much as realistic ones.

I suspect that perhaps a prejudice against certain types of material has prevented you from appreciating its potential.

Your examples, though, are still mostly entertainment although maybe less trivial.  The key to me is that you said that you avoided some works because they made you feel bad.  There are human emotions that are not related to suspense that can make you want to watch, even if they fill you with dread.

The reality show 'Intervention' was a tough one.  I think that may be an example of popular art acting as a salve to popular reality.

If I want to watch real-life druggies ruining their lives with real-life drugs I can look out my window. I don't need to watch them on TV. 

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12476
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #48 on: June 20, 2017, 04:51:16 pm »
And why would Don Draper's 1960s ad firm or Walter White's meth lab be any closer to my life than the chilly halls of Winterfell? That stuff isn't real either. It might be somebody's vision of a reality that might exist somewhere, but it might as well be a fantasy world.  I watched Winter's Bone, and quite enjoyed it... but the depiction of life in the Missouri Ozarks didn't bring the characters closer to me... it was a completely alien culture that could have just as easily been in another century or another planet.   Maybe life in the Ozarks really is like that, or maybe it isn't. I wouldn't know. It was an interesting setting, for sure, but not because it was real or relatable but more the opposite.  What made Winter's Bone work for me was a compelling character facing a suspenseful situation.  If I hadn't become emotionally connected to Jennifer Lawrence's character, it wouldn't have worked as a film.

I don't know why you keep bringing up Mad Men.  I will submit that there is more chance that an ad executive's life or a hillbilly's life will be closer to the viewers than that of a hobbit.

Winter's Bone was pretty good if I remember.


Quote
The idea that I'm trying to express, and that I think you might be struggling with, is that the qualities that make Don Draper or Walter White or Ree Dolly connect with the audience aren't a result of the setting.  We become emotionally invested in characters that speak to universal human experiences, and these transcend genre.

It's not setting alone, but a real setting puts the viewer into a different experiential context than a fantastic one.
 
Quote
I suspect that perhaps a prejudice against certain types of material has prevented you from appreciating its potential.

I didn't say it can't be good but I don't have many examples where fantasy can approach the kind of challenging film that brings the viewer to the level of theatre.

Quote
If I want to watch real-life druggies ruining their lives with real-life drugs I can look out my window. I don't need to watch them on TV. 

Ok, beside the point.  It seems to bother you that I can't take fantasy as seriously as some genres.  I'm sorry.
 

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #49 on: June 21, 2017, 09:05:13 am »
I don't know why you keep bringing up Mad Men.

Mad Men and Breaking Bad are the gold standard for people who love "real" television. They're the only recent TV programs I could think of that have the same degree of critical acclaim and cultural impact as Game of Thrones. Going back farther one might put The Sopranos in the same weight class.

I keep mentioning Don Draper and Walter White to make the point that it's not their clothes and their place of work that makes them so engrossing to their audience.

I will submit that there is more chance that an ad executive's life or a hillbilly's life will be closer to the viewers than that of a hobbit.

Well, I don't offer The Hobbit movie or the Lord of the Rings movies as an example of challenging material (and undecided on the books) but that's beside the point.

You look at Frodo and apparently see a short guy with hairy feet and therefore unrelatable. Where as Don Draper wears a suit and works in an office and is therefore relatable. That's the thought process?

Others might see one as an aloof, unapproachable man of mystery while the other as young person struggling with a responsibility he's ill-prepared to deal with. Are you sure the ad guy is more relatable?

Winter's Bone was pretty good if I remember.
It was.

It's not setting alone, but a real setting puts the viewer into a different experiential context than a fantastic one.
Can you elaborate on this?
 
I didn't say it can't be good but I don't have many examples where fantasy can approach the kind of challenging film that brings the viewer to the level of theatre.
Sure, the majority science fiction and fantasy material aren't intended to be challenging.

Ok, beside the point.  It seems to bother you that I can't take fantasy as seriously as some genres.  I'm sorry.

Your personal preference doesn't bother me, but you've been trying to make the case that there is an objective logical basis behind it and that not-real programs are inherently less worthy.

And personally I'm deeply skeptical about the merit of something like "Intervention".  I've never watched it but I'm familiar with the concept. I view it and similar programs as being akin to grief tourism. You can pick up the remote, wallow in someone else's tragedy for half an hour, and then go on with your life.  Are we so desperate to feel something that we need to vicariously share somebody else's trauma for half an hour a week?  You've likened escapist cinema to dessert... is this what you view as the veggies?   Is this what you find "edifying"?  To me this isn't edifying, it's exploitive and voyeuristic.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12476
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #50 on: June 21, 2017, 01:08:10 pm »

Mad Men and Breaking Bad are the gold standard for people who love "real" television. They're the only recent TV programs I could think of that have the same degree of critical acclaim and cultural impact as Game of Thrones. Going back farther one might put The Sopranos in the same weight class.

*Spitting out my coffee*

Mad Men was a truly great show but it was essentially a very brainy and sociologically-themed soap opera.  You could definitely feel for characters, as you would in any quality film, but it wasn't exactly "real" nor did it rise above escapism at all times.

Breaking Bad was a comic book thriller.

The Sopranos was an extremely well-written crime soap. 

Quote

I keep mentioning Don Draper and Walter White to make the point that it's not their clothes and their place of work that makes them so engrossing to their audience.

Of course that's only part of it, as I have already said.  Unless we come up with an example we will keep talking past each other.

Quote
Well, I don't offer The Hobbit movie or the Lord of the Rings movies as an example of challenging material (and undecided on the books) but that's beside the point.

You look at Frodo and apparently see a short guy with hairy feet and therefore unrelatable. Where as Don Draper wears a suit and works in an office and is therefore relatable. That's the thought process?

No... he's *more* relatable because DD is a human being.
 
Quote
Can you elaborate on this?

Robert Reed (Mr. Brady from The Brady Bunch) wrote a famous memo to Sherwood Swartz:

https://www.ericdsnider.com/blog/batman-in-the-operating-room-why-some-comedy-isnt-funny/


Quote

Your personal preference doesn't bother me, but you've been trying to make the case that there is an objective logical basis behind it and that not-real programs are inherently less worthy.

I struggle with 'less worthy'.  Like saying 'Coca Cola isn't nutrious' it's not exactly true.  I have never said that there's no worth to escapist fiction or trivial fiction but that - like a balanced diety - a healthy society demands more.

Quote
And personally I'm deeply skeptical about the merit of something like "Intervention".  I've never watched it but I'm familiar with the concept.

Ok, well I have watched most of the things I have commented on.  I haven't seen GoT so I can't comment on it much, except to say that I don't see how fantasy can challenge reality for a deep experience.  It's no comment on GoT which I hear is great.

Can you explore grief without causing it 'grief tourism' ?  If so, then I don't see how you could go more real than intervention.  The Americas have a huge addiction problem and this is a way to see it in front of your face, and feel it in your heart.
Quote
Are we so desperate to feel something that we need to vicariously share somebody else's trauma for half an hour a week?  You've likened escapist cinema to dessert... is this what you view as the veggies?   Is this what you find "edifying"?  To me this isn't edifying, it's exploitive and voyeuristic.

 -k

We need to explore our pain through the arts.  Do you disagree ?  There is indeed a counter-argument.  I think of 'Sullivan's Travels' which is a serio-comic classic film that explores this question in an entertaining and intelligent way.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #51 on: June 22, 2017, 02:18:52 am »
*Spitting out my coffee*

Mad Men was a truly great show but it was essentially a very brainy and sociologically-themed soap opera.  You could definitely feel for characters, as you would in any quality film, but it wasn't exactly "real" nor did it rise above escapism at all times.

Breaking Bad was a comic book thriller.

The Sopranos was an extremely well-written crime soap. 

Ok, you started off arguing that fiction in "real" settings is inherently more compelling, but now you seem to want to talk about "reality tv" shows instead.


Of course that's only part of it, as I have already said.  Unless we come up with an example we will keep talking past each other.

No... he's *more* relatable because DD is a human being.

For any practical narrative purpose, Frodo is a human being as well.  He's got human emotions, human psychology, human facial expression, lives in what is for all intents and purposes a human agrarian culture, and literally the only thing that makes him not human is that the author called him a Hobbit.  If Tolkien had merely said he was short would you then be willing to buy in?

If you're unwilling to buy into Frodo because he's short, why would I buy into Don Draper, who is a powerful male?  How can I identify with this Diana Prince person, when she is clearly a brunette?

Ultimately the reason we build rapport with fictional characters isn't physical characteristics or labels that are attached to them.


(sidebar: in a genre where major events always seem to center around Kings and Lords and great heroes and powerful entities of all kinds, Tolkien made the Hobbits the most relatable protagonists possible. Surrounded by the likes of Aragorn and Gandalf and Galadriel, Frodo and friends represent the everyman.)



Robert Reed (Mr. Brady from The Brady Bunch) wrote a famous memo to Sherwood Swartz:

https://www.ericdsnider.com/blog/batman-in-the-operating-room-why-some-comedy-isnt-funny/

He's making a point that relates to something I've learned in writing, which was expressed to me as "make a promise to your reader, and keep it."  You need to establish a tone quickly to let your reader know what you're offering them, and if it's interesting to them they'll keep reading and if it's not interesting to them or if they can't figure out what you're offering them, they'll put your story down and read something else.  Batman showing up in the operating room, or turning your satire into a slapstick, would be examples of breaking your promise to your audience.  On the other hand, when the gang in Blazing Saddles brawl all the way off the set into the movie studio and out into the parking lot, we've already been primed for something completely absurd to happen, so this is right up our alley.

Nothing in what Reed is saying actually suggests that a "real" frame is inherently better. Indeed, as the accompanying article says:

Quote
To summarize, Reed’s basic point is this: You cannot mix wildly different theatrical styles within the same production. If a show starts out being realistic (whether drama or comedy), then the audience expects realism. We don’t have to suspend our disbelief very much. But if suddenly a non-realistic element like slapstick or fantasy is injected, we are thrown off. We have not been prepared to accept something like that.

We have no problem accepting a fire-breathing dragon in a production that has already established itself as fantasy. But if that dragon were to appear in a Neil Simon comedy, we would find it baffling and unbelievable.

If you're watching Lord of the Rings, and find yourself unable to empathize with a main character because he's 3 feet tall and has hairy feet, you're just watching the wrong movie.

In Game of Thrones, we don't actually see any dragons until episode 10. But they set a tone right from episode 1 that lets us know we're not watching a fairy-tale with knights in shining armor and happy endings.  The hatching of the baby dragons at the end of episode 10 is preceded by 9 episodes of brutal violence, gut-twisting tension, startling betrayal, and all manner of other unpleasantness.  Anybody who thought they were getting a happy care-free fairy-tail was probably long gone by the end of episode 3.

I struggle with 'less worthy'.  Like saying 'Coca Cola isn't nutrious' it's not exactly true.  I have never said that there's no worth to escapist fiction or trivial fiction but that - like a balanced diety - a healthy society demands more.

Ok, well I have watched most of the things I have commented on.  I haven't seen GoT so I can't comment on it much, except to say that I don't see how fantasy can challenge reality for a deep experience.  It's no comment on GoT which I hear is great.

Because like all great fiction, it taps into human experience that transcends genre.

Can you explore grief without causing it 'grief tourism' ?  If so, then I don't see how you could go more real than intervention.  The Americas have a huge addiction problem and this is a way to see it in front of your face, and feel it in your heart.
We need to explore our pain through the arts.  Do you disagree ?  There is indeed a counter-argument.  I think of 'Sullivan's Travels' which is a serio-comic classic film that explores this question in an entertaining and intelligent way.

I'm not sure that spending a half-hour a week vicariously sharing the grief of drug-stricken families would really make me understand the drug crisis any better. It might make me feel sad for a while, but is that inherently valuable?  "The drug crisis goes on, but Kimmy has shed tears and is now Woketm."

Obesity is a huge problem (no pun intended) as well, and I accidentally watched a few minutes of one of those shows that follows the struggles of morbidly obese people trying to lose weight. I understood that it was a big struggle for them. I understood that they felt very bad that they kept letting themselves down.  But so what? At the end of the day, my feeling sorry for some fat-people for a few minutes didn't make me feel "edified" or "nurtured". I'm struggling to think of any positives I took away from it.

And how real is it, anyway?

Every once in a while I hear a reporter on CBC radio go do interviews with homeless people. Apparently an attempt to humanize them and build sympathy or something. But the interviews never talk about the freak-outs and fights I see on a regular basis, never talk about people passed out in a pool of their own vomit, never talk about dropping trow and pissing on the street in front of pedestrians. Doesn't talk about business owners shoveling human excrement off their steps each morning...   stuff that I know is real that somehow doesn't make the cut for radio.  What did the fat-people show decide didn't merit showing?  What part did the intervention show leave out?  Are you being "edified", or just being manipulated?

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12476
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #52 on: June 22, 2017, 06:27:58 am »
Ok, you started off arguing that fiction in "real" settings is inherently more compelling, but now you seem to want to talk about "reality tv" shows instead.

Yes, I'm using it to explain how challenging stories have more propensity to affect if they are set in a real setting.

Quote
  If Tolkien had merely said he was short would you then be willing to buy in?

It's not about being willing, it's about how the story affects you outside your mental processes.  A truly masterful story will disarm your critical functions and thinking about such things.


Quote
If you're unwilling to buy into Frodo because he's short, why would I buy into Don Draper, who is a powerful male?  How can I identify with this Diana Prince person, when she is clearly a brunette?

By the time these stories are 10 minutes in you are in the mindset of the fantasy world anyway.  Again, without an example that worked on you we can't go much further with this.

Quote


He's making a point that relates to something I've learned in writing, which was expressed to me as "make a promise to your reader, and keep it."  You need to establish a tone quickly to let your reader know what you're offering them, and if it's interesting to them they'll keep reading and if it's not interesting to them or if they can't figure out what you're offering them, they'll put your story down and read something else.  Batman showing up in the operating room, or turning your satire into a slapstick, would be examples of breaking your promise to your audience.  On the other hand, when the gang in Blazing Saddles brawl all the way off the set into the movie studio and out into the parking lot, we've already been primed for something completely absurd to happen, so this is right up our alley.

Yes and the promise of a real and challenging story will be different than that of a fantasy IMO.  If an imaginary creature can appear to solve all the problems then we're in a different frame of mind.  There is no escape.

Quote
Nothing in what Reed is saying actually suggests that a "real" frame is inherently better. Indeed, as the accompanying article says:

I'll admit that what I am saying smacks of snobbery but I struggle to NOT say 'better'.  But I'm glad you read the piece.  I remember it as hilarious.  Did you think so ?

Quote
If you're watching Lord of the Rings, and find yourself unable to empathize with a main character because he's 3 feet tall and has hairy feet, you're just watching the wrong movie.

'Unable to empathize' is not the case.  I empathized very strongly with Indiana Jones in Raiders and found it to be truly amazing and great.  Maybe an all-time favourite.  But it was not the same experience as I get from theatre.

Quote
In Game of Thrones, we don't actually see any dragons until episode 10.
:D

Ok.  I'm snobbing out on this.  I have had friends try to convince me to watch GoT.  I tell them I don't like stories with dragons and they said there were no dragons... until episode 10 !   :D

Quote
Because like all great fiction, it taps into human experience that transcends genre.

Absolutely agree.  Still not the same experience.  I have loved many different types of women but they were still different people.  That's an analogy btw.

Quote
I'm not sure that spending a half-hour a week vicariously sharing the grief of drug-stricken families would really make me understand the drug crisis any better. It might make me feel sad for a while, but is that inherently valuable?  "The drug crisis goes on, but Kimmy has shed tears and is now Woketm."

Obesity is a huge problem (no pun intended) as well, and I accidentally watched a few minutes of one of those shows that follows the struggles of morbidly obese people trying to lose weight. I understood that it was a big struggle for them. I understood that they felt very bad that they kept letting themselves down.  But so what? At the end of the day, my feeling sorry for some fat-people for a few minutes didn't make me feel "edified" or "nurtured". I'm struggling to think of any positives I took away from it.

And how real is it, anyway?

It's real.  And you say you're not sure.  Well, as I have been saying until you have had that experience it's like describing LSD to someone who hasn't taken it.  Have you ever seen theatre ?  I think the films that I am talking about draw on a heavily theatrical experience.

Quote
Are you being "edified", or just being manipulated?

All story telling, all art manipulates.  And you pay them to do it !

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #53 on: June 24, 2017, 02:02:32 pm »
Yes, I'm using it to explain how challenging stories have more propensity to affect if they are set in a real setting.

And yet I provided examples of characters in "real settings" and you didn't like those examples either because of some other factor, so maybe it's not "real settings" that you're actually talking about here.

It's not about being willing, it's about how the story affects you outside your mental processes.  A truly masterful story will disarm your critical functions and thinking about such things.

By the time these stories are 10 minutes in you are in the mindset of the fantasy world anyway.  Again, without an example that worked on you we can't go much further with this.

Yes and the promise of a real and challenging story will be different than that of a fantasy IMO.  If an imaginary creature can appear to solve all the problems then we're in a different frame of mind.  There is no escape.

No.  This relates back to what I talked about in the previous message.  The "promise" made to the audience.  The MASH audience knows that Batman isn't going to show up in the OR.  The Brady Bunch audience knows that Mr Brady isn't going to punch Mrs Brady and give her a black eye.  The sitcom audience knows that there are no problems that won't be resolved by the end of the episode.  And the Game of Thrones audience knows that none of the problems get an easy solution, imaginary creatures be damned. 

Your problem might be that you've been conditioned that if you see a castle you expect a fairy-tale ending.  We get to Winterfell and it's a dirty, dingy place full of horse manure, prostitutes, and dirty destitute peasants. It's not a Disney castle. The first time we meet Ned Stark he's executing two soldiers for desertion. He insists that he swing the blade himself, because he believes that as ruler he's accountable, and he insists that his sons watch so that they too understand.  Heavy is the head that wears the crown. Within minutes we've already been told this isn't a Disney fantasy kingdom.  10 minutes in and we're in a very different mindset from the fantasy setting you're thinking of.


I'll admit that what I am saying smacks of snobbery but I struggle to NOT say 'better'.  But I'm glad you read the piece.  I remember it as hilarious.  Did you think so ?

Yes, it's hilarious, but you missed Mr Brady's main point, which is for the most part a counter-argument to the idea you're proposing.

'Unable to empathize' is not the case.  I empathized very strongly with Indiana Jones in Raiders and found it to be truly amazing and great.  Maybe an all-time favourite.  But it was not the same experience as I get from theatre.

"Unable to empathize", "less able to empathize", whatever.  Whichever the case, your argument is that superficial characteristics-- shortness, hairy feet, doesn't wear a suit or work in an office-- make Frodo a less empathetic character than Don Draper.   But that's silly, because superficial characteristics aren't what build the connection between the audience and the character.

Ok.  I'm snobbing out on this.  I have had friends try to convince me to watch GoT.  I tell them I don't like stories with dragons and they said there were no dragons... until episode 10 !   :D

By episode 10 the audience has seen so much violence, treachery, brutality, and ugliness that the audience is long past the notion that the dragon hatchlings are going to provide a fairy-tale resolution. Central characters have been killed, characters the audience was invested in.  The tone of the series is firmly established by this point.  This first arrival of anything mystical in the show is a remarkable moment for an audience that's been almost struck numb by the events of the series up to this point.  The arrival of the dragons is a turn of events that signals a change in the so-far dismal fortunes of one of the main characters, but the dragons are only the size of cats at this point-- it's not a deus-ex-machina solution to her problems.


Absolutely agree.  Still not the same experience.  I have loved many different types of women but they were still different people.  That's an analogy btw.

You can agree that great fiction needn't be set in an office building to tap universal human experiences?  Ok, then. What's "not the same experience" then?

It's real.  And you say you're not sure.  Well, as I have been saying until you have had that experience it's like describing LSD to someone who hasn't taken it.  Have you ever seen theatre ?  I think the films that I am talking about draw on a heavily theatrical experience.

All story telling, all art manipulates.  And you pay them to do it !

Yes, I've seen theatre.  Not sure what it has to do with reality TV.

I just don't feel like wallowing in someone else's grief for a half hour a week makes me a better person.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12476
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #54 on: June 24, 2017, 11:49:08 pm »
And yet I provided examples of characters in "real settings" and you didn't like those examples either because of some other factor, so maybe it's not "real settings" that you're actually talking about here.

Not only real settings, no. 
Quote
And the Game of Thrones audience knows that none of the problems get an easy solution, imaginary creatures be damned. 

Ok, I'm guilty of not having watched the show so I assumed there was magic in it.

Quote
Your problem might be that you've been conditioned that if you see a castle you expect a fairy-tale ending.  We get to Winterfell and it's a dirty, dingy place full of horse manure, prostitutes, and dirty destitute peasants. It's not a Disney castle. The first time we meet Ned Stark he's executing two soldiers for desertion. He insists that he swing the blade himself, because he believes that as ruler he's accountable, and he insists that his sons watch so that they too understand.  Heavy is the head that wears the crown. Within minutes we've already been told this isn't a Disney fantasy kingdom.  10 minutes in and we're in a very different mindset from the fantasy setting you're thinking of.

I clearly don't understand the show.  Castles don't make fantasy, since castles existed in the real world.  I thought the show had dragons or something... if it's just a medieval pseudo-earth then maybe I misunderstood.
 
Quote
Yes, it's hilarious, but you missed Mr Brady's main point, which is for the most part a counter-argument to the idea you're proposing.

No, it's not at all.  You're acknowledging that there are modes of storytelling at play here, and that's what I'm saying too.
 
Quote
   But that's silly, because superficial characteristics aren't what build the connection between the audience and the character.
You're mixing up quality of story with modes of storytelling.  I empathize more with Indiana Jones than many characters in so-called serious movies.  Forest Gump for example.  That's because Raiders was better storytelling.  This may be confusing, but the type of story I'm talking about is real as well as well-told.  And I'm certainly not saying all serious-themed works are better than any fantasy.

Quote
By episode 10 the audience has seen so much violence, treachery, brutality, and ugliness that the audience is long past the notion that the dragon hatchlings are going to provide a fairy-tale resolution.

Ok, so there ARE dragons.
 
Quote
You can agree that great fiction needn't be set in an office building to tap universal human experiences?  Ok, then. What's "not the same experience" then?

It's like describing an experience that you have never had.  Unfortunately, I know if I watched GoT I would probably enjoy it but I would feel the same way.  Unless you somehow had the experience I'm describing from my perspective, ie. a deeply affecting experience on the level of theatre, you may not be able to understand this.
 

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #55 on: June 26, 2017, 02:06:06 am »
No, it's not at all.  You're acknowledging that there are modes of storytelling at play here, and that's what I'm saying too.

Your notion of "modes of storytelling" apparently includes the assumption that a fantasy setting means fairy-tale happy endings, and apparently precludes the possibility that it could be as emotionally powerful as an episode of reality TV.

  You're mixing up quality of story with modes of storytelling.  I empathize more with Indiana Jones than many characters in so-called serious movies.  Forest Gump for example.  That's because Raiders was better storytelling.  This may be confusing, but the type of story I'm talking about is real as well as well-told.  And I'm certainly not saying all serious-themed works are better than any fantasy.

Ok, so just to recap, you're willing to become emotionally invested in Indiana Jones, even though he's a two-dimensional comic-book character in a setting full of fantasy elements and completely implausible events, because it's good storytelling.

Whereas you're less able to empathize with Frodo Baggins, because he's 3 feet tall and has hairy feet and doesn't work in an office. And unable to get emotionally invested in Ned Stark and the gang at Winterfell, because there are dragons.

I feel like we're approaching August1991 levels of absurdity here. I can't tell if I'm being trolled or not.


Ok, I'm guilty of not having watched the show so I assumed there was magic in it.
...
I clearly don't understand the show.  Castles don't make fantasy, since castles existed in the real world.  I thought the show had dragons or something... if it's just a medieval pseudo-earth then maybe I misunderstood.
...
Ok, so there ARE dragons.

You talked above about being able to buy into Indiana Jones because it's good storytelling. Game of Thrones is the best storytelling I've seen on TV, bar none.  These are richly-drawn, deeply developed characters that you become emotionally invested in like few others. And with their track-record of killing major characters unexpectedly, you're never sure what might happen. You complained that in fantasy settings a magical creature will just show up and fix everything, but in 6 seasons of GoT we've seen precious little get fixed, and a whole lot of things get broken.

 You watch Indiana Jones knowing full well that whatever happens he'll come out on top and the good-guys will win in the end. You get no such promise watching GoT, and the result is a tremendously suspenseful and sometimes nerve-wracking experience.  You get no promise that your favorite character will see the end of the season, you don't get any assurance that the good-guys will come out on top... it's sometimes hard to decide who the good-guys even are.

As I said before, I've watched several episodes while pacing nervously back and forth the whole time. I've been so crushed by several episodes that I felt numb for hours afterward.   There's simply nothing else like it.  That's my opinion. If your opinion is that I must be wrong because there are dragons, or that it couldn't be that compelling because it's not set in an office building, I don't know what else to say.

It's like describing an experience that you have never had.  Unfortunately, I know if I watched GoT I would probably enjoy it but I would feel the same way.  Unless you somehow had the experience I'm describing from my perspective, ie. a deeply affecting experience on the level of theatre, you may not be able to understand this.

It sounds like you've already decided you wouldn't like GoT, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy so at this point I'd suggest you not bother.  For me, it delivers a level of suspense and excitement and highs and lows unlike anything else I've ever watched on television, certainly unlike watching obese losers wallow in self-pity because they can't stay away from Snacky-Cakes.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12476
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #56 on: June 26, 2017, 08:07:28 am »
Your notion of "modes of storytelling" apparently includes the assumption that a fantasy setting means fairy-tale happy endings, and apparently precludes the possibility that it could be as emotionally powerful as an episode of reality TV.

Not 'happy' endings but deus ex machina.  Yes, my idea is that fantasy doesn't have the potential of reality to affect me, and audiences in general.

Quote
Ok, so just to recap, you're willing to become emotionally invested in Indiana Jones, even though he's a two-dimensional comic-book character in a setting full of fantasy elements and completely implausible events, because it's good storytelling.

'Willing' ?  No.  The mark of a master storyteller is that your will melts away and you find yourself in their world.


Quote
Whereas you're less able to empathize with Frodo Baggins, because he's 3 feet tall and has hairy feet and doesn't work in an office. And unable to get emotionally invested in Ned Stark and the gang at Winterfell, because there are dragons.

I feel like we're approaching August1991 levels of absurdity here. I can't tell if I'm being trolled or not.


What may be happening is that you are revealing the difference between us: I have no choice but to fall under the spell of a good storyteller.  I forget myself and stop thinking entirely.  You haven't experienced that.

What I have said several times is that until we have an example where you were caught in it, we can't come to an understanding.



Quote
You talked above about being able to buy into Indiana Jones because it's good storytelling. Game of Thrones is the best storytelling I've seen on TV, bar none.  These are richly-drawn, deeply developed characters that you become emotionally invested in like few others. And with their track-record of killing major characters unexpectedly, you're never sure what might happen. You complained that in fantasy settings a magical creature will just show up and fix everything, but in 6 seasons of GoT we've seen precious little get fixed, and a whole lot of things get broken.

I have never doubted on here that GoT is good storytelling.

Quote
You watch Indiana Jones knowing full well that whatever happens he'll come out on top and the good-guys will win in the end. You get no such promise watching GoT, and the result is a tremendously suspenseful and sometimes nerve-wracking experience.  You get no promise that your favorite character will see the end of the season, you don't get any assurance that the good-guys will come out on top... it's sometimes hard to decide who the good-guys even are.

Yes, so Raiders is even more escapist than GoT.  Maybe we can pivot on that and take each others' arguments moving forward ?

 

It sounds like you've already decided you wouldn't like GoT, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy so at this point I'd suggest you not bother.  For me, it delivers a level of suspense and excitement and highs and lows unlike anything else I've ever watched on television, certainly unlike watching obese losers wallow in self-pity because they can't stay away from Snacky-Cakes.
 
[/quote]

Yes, maybe we're spinning here because you're not listening:

" I know if I watched GoT I would probably enjoy it " - comment 54 above.

New idea: are you watching the Handmaid's Tale ?  Maybe differentiating reality-based and emotionally-immature stories would help us:

                                  \  Reality Level:                     Real                                Unreal
Emotional Maturity:

High                                                                      Amour                              Game of Thrones                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         


Low                                                                        Forrest Gump                   Harry Potter


-------

I have given zero thought to that graph, or maybe the time it took to type it.

So there are some points for you to address, in our discovery.  I would also like to switch arguments with regards to Raiders vs. GoT

-Why do I need to watch a show where my favourite character could be killed at any time ?
-Why do I need to spend my time on entertainment that makes me feel bad ?

Your answers could be informative to our discussion here.                                                                               

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #57 on: June 26, 2017, 08:25:10 am »
"Why do I need to spend my time on entertainment that makes me feel bad ?"

It's interesting that you bring this up. In video game design they want people returning to their games over and over, buying add ons for the games, etc. What they're finding is that games that are dark, a large number of people engage with them but don't stay. They suspect the oppressive tones make people feel like they need a break from them. Overwatch is such a massive success because it got away from the dark, drab, and dreary tone of games like Call of Duty, Counter Strike, etc.

This shouldn't be surprising to people. Comic relief has been around since Greek theatre. Writing a story is a lot like cooking. You need a balance of flavours. If you're too heavy on one it throws he whole dish off.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12476
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #58 on: June 26, 2017, 08:31:32 am »
Still, there is an audience for dark with low chance of light.

Look up 'Dark Victory' - an old movie that spawned a rush of weepers.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Wonder Woman
« Reply #59 on: June 28, 2017, 02:18:49 am »
Not 'happy' endings but deus ex machina.  Yes, my idea is that fantasy doesn't have the potential of reality to affect me, and audiences in general.

Deus ex machina can happen in any genre.  It doesn't require fantasy elements, it just requires bad writing.

"Now what are we going to do? They'll foreclose on the orphanage any day now..."

"Hey, it's a letter from a lawyer.  He says my great uncle just passed away and left me $14 million!"

"That's great, but what about the orphans? How can we stop the bank from foreclosing on the-- wait, did you say $14 million? That's the exact amount we need to save the orphanage!"


You know what I mean?  You're 38 minutes into a 42 minute episode of Law & Order with no hope in sight, when suddenly a police informant shows up out of nowhere with just the right clue to crack the case and get the conviction. Or the forensics geek turns up from the lab and says he's found something that they missed earlier. Or whatever. 



'Willing' ?  No.  The mark of a master storyteller is that your will melts away and you find yourself in their world.

What may be happening is that you are revealing the difference between us: I have no choice but to fall under the spell of a good storyteller.  I forget myself and stop thinking entirely.  You haven't experienced that.

Certainly I've experienced that.  Why would you think I haven't?

What I have said several times is that until we have an example where you were caught in it, we can't come to an understanding.

We've been discussing GoT as emotionally compelling fantasy... what kind of example, specifically, do you need?


New idea: are you watching the Handmaid's Tale ? 

Not as of yet, but maybe eventually.

Maybe differentiating reality-based and emotionally-immature stories would help us:

                                  \  Reality Level:                     Real                                Unreal
Emotional Maturity:

High                                                                      Amour                              Game of Thrones                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         


Low                                                                        Forrest Gump                   Harry Potter

I guess it's a start, although I'm not sure the phrase "emotional maturity" is exactly what I'm thinking of.  I will think more on that.


-Why do I need to watch a show where my favourite character could be killed at any time ? 

What has made the death of major characters so effective in GoT is that it creates a strong sense of uncertainty.  With most stories you know the good guy will win and it's just a question of how.  With this one, when you see a character you thought was a primary focus meet an unexpected end, it changes your expectation greatly.

"Somebody will save Joey. He's the star of the show.  It would be such an unfair ending if Chloe gets away with this. Joey has to survive.  The cavalry better get here real **** soon. Holy ****, they did it.  They really **** did it. I can't believe they **** killed Joey."

Going forward, you know that the characters aren't safe and it adds greatly to the suspense.  As a viewer this completely changes your mindset. You no longer feel that sense of assurance that Indy will escape somehow.


-Why do I need to spend my time on entertainment that makes me feel bad ?

Well, I don't like entertainment that makes me feel bad, as I said early on in the thread, but I have become engrossed in this one because the experience-- suspense, anxiety, and all-- is so compelling, and because the payoffs are so much sweeter because of the struggle.


 -k
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 02:22:09 am by kimmy »
Paris - London - New York - Kim City