Comment on In Star Wars, what would it mean "to bring balance to The Force?"
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 weeks ago
Nothing. Nothing in Star Wars means anything. It’s just mediocre sci-fi at best and explanations for pretty much everything are worked out backwards trying to fix all the inconsistencies and nonsensical ideas. “This monster will digest you for 1000 years!”. So are people supposed to be kept alive inside of it for that long or you die immediately and it just takes 1000 years to poop you out? Just another silly phrase in a badly written script but I’m sure “the canon” came up with some crazy explanation for it (“you see the worm bends time and space in a way that one day inside of it feels like 1000 years!” or something).
Agree with everything except one thing.
It’s just mediocre sci-fi at best
Star wars is not sci-fi, it’s fantasy. People usually make that mistake because most fantasy is medieval and most sci-fi is futuristic, but Star Wars is an example of a futuristic fantasy story. Medieval sci-fi is harder to find, but some Stargate episodes from the point of view of the native of the planet would qualify and I’m sure there’s some 40k or Star Trek examples as well.
I found this universe that might be medieval scif-fi:
You beat me here. Great series and one I always use as an example in sci-fi Vs fantasy comparisons.
Mistborn is mediaeval sci-fi
There are detailed in-world explanations for precisely where the magic comes from, who gets it, why, and how it relates to other physical systems.
It’s as much sci-fi as warp drives, planet cities, telecommunications aliens, ancient AIs, and space pirates…
Anyways, enjoy this quote:
There really is nothing to fear in fantasy unless you are afraid of the freedom of uncertainty. This is why it’s hard for me to imagine that anyone who likes science can dislike fantasy. Both are based so profoundly on the admission of uncertainty, the welcoming acceptance of unanswered questions. Of course the scientist seeks to ask how things are the way they are, not to imagine how they might be otherwise. But are the two operations opposed, or related?
Ursula K. Le Guin, “It Doesn’t Have To Be the Way It Is,” June 2011; collected in No Time to Spare (2017)
The books follow a series of Allomancers, who are individuals who can consume metal to wield magical powers.
Doesn’t seem scientific.
It’s more sci-fi than Star Wars
Yes, of course you’re right but even ignoring all the fantasy bits and just focusing on the science and vision of the future it’s mediocre. Let’s take AI as an example. Star Trek has state of AI solidly defined: there’s one truly intelligent android, it’s state of the art and no one really knows how it works so it’s not copied yet but it’s recognized as a person and granted all rights. Computers are intelligent but not real AI. Dune doesn’t have AI and there’s an explanation for it. But Star Wars? C3P0 was build from junk, is completely useless but is kept around for decades as some sort of a pet or companion. At the same time robot soldiers are just weapons. AI is granted personhood or treated as appliance without any sense or logic behind it. Nothing besides robots has any intelligence for some reason. Star Wars used basic concepts from sci-fi but it’s clear the writers didn’t understand any of them.
Yeah, it’s a little hilarious to me that Star Wars occasionally tries to get serious about politics or economics and the droids are just kind of sitting there, completely unexamined in any way.
You can just spin up a consciousness that has to obey your orders and can be housed inside any kind of machinery and it has no impact on society?
I just thought about this now, but any alternate history that explores tech in the Middle-Ages would count as medieval sci-fi. For example, the Eastern Romans building on the Greek techs and experiments and using Greek fire, concentrated mirror beams, calculators and steam engines.
Your point being?
It’s playing in the past and not in the future
Fantasy, not sci-fi. At least since Disney killed all the extended canon that tried to graft on science to all the fantastic elements.
I think perhaps the original Star Wars just being kind of a cool sci-fi/fantasy setting with more of a vague outline and nothing super concrete actually is what let it thrive in the way it did. I don’t know if it was intentional by any means, Lucas just wanted to make a neat space fantasy story and didn’t put a whole lot of thought into it. Nerds love to debate, nerds love sci-fi, nerds love fantasy. It’s almost a perfect breeding ground for what happened. Lucas and then Disney saw a rabid fan base and thought “I can use this” then tried to enforce more meaning into something that was vague and fun to speculate on and it ended up going very poorly until you look at the success of the sales. Cause some people just like space/fantasy stories.
You know, I will give SW credit for this: Luke’s decision to not fight his father at the climax of the trilogy is really quite amazing given the western pop film canon’s enshrinement of violence as the ultimate means to defeat evil. This was a culture that had grown up on Westerns and war films. The good guy always kills the bad guy in the end.
He was trying to make a Kurosawa-esque, classical hero story set in space. He definitely had more than a vague idea but the Jedi magic stuff really seems like a kind of hand waving magic MacGuffin.
Hidden Fortress
@LordMayor @Vedlt I amused my sweetheart the other night by explaining the Lucas/Kurasawa influence, and pointing out that a katana is not a broadsword but is instead a type of saber, not heavy.
And the only reason those Samurais movies were made was because Japan had prohibitions on showing guns in movies since, well, you know, they were probably a little bit embarassed by how nuts they’d gone in dubyadubyatwo. Most of Kurosawa movies are really inspired by Westerns more than anything else.
I love the circular nature of culture.
Totally agree. Star Wars was just a cool movie and something new for its time. I even liked the first one but personally, I think the cliffhanger ending of the second movie was a disgusting cash grab that should have ended the entire experiment and it go only worse from there.
@ExLisper @Vedlt who's The cliffhanger in the second movie was legit homage to the old Saturday morning serials ,Buster Crabbe style. Not that I liked it, but I think it's legit. However, there is no forgiving the Ewoks, the yub yub dance, Jar Jar Binks, or a thousand and one other crass marketing grabs. And by the way, Han fucking shot first, mother-fucker.
Han didn’t shoot first. He was the only one who shot.
Yes, it’s pretty clear from the media around Star Wars that Lucas didn’t really care too much about Star Wars a work of philosophy or pragmatic world building… the Star Wars Christmas Special was particularly awful, and Alan Dean Foster, who wrote the original novelization of New Hope said Lucas’ instructions amounted to “whatever.”
Makes it even more annoying when some insane fascist shit happens IRL and people are like “omg it’s just like what Palpatine did” or whatever.
Like no dude, it’s like what fucking Adolf Hitler did
There’s this all powerful force that binds the universe together and controls our destinies. It’s like gravity, but different and possibly sentient. We call it “the force”.
tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
Honestly, this.
George Lucas had a basic outline then just started making shit up as it went along. He even tried to retcon stuff by blocking the reproduction of the original releases.
Fans, and non-canon media spent so much time explaining his bs.
If you want to enjoy Star Wars, don’t think about it too much. Just roll your eyes at the dumb stuff and cheer for the action.