OOTS #1219 - The Discussion Thread

[Doug Lampert]

Yeah, i kinda know what's metaphor.
I did see this somewhere, or else i wouldn't have noted on my files. Where i saw it is another business, i did it a few years ago before the WG to Eberron came out.
I've been unable to find it yesterday, so indeed it probably was a mistake on this somewhere.

Sun god seems unlikely for any of them.

Remember that theologically the Challion gods have no physical power or presence at all, they are purely spiritual. They can't move a feather without a mortal to do it for them and they do not create or manipulate things of the material world.

Their powers are purely spiritual and their influence in the world is via their churches and saints.

[Petrocorus]

Sun god seems unlikely for any of them.

Remember that theologically the Challion gods have no physical power or presence at all, they are purely spiritual. They can't move a feather without a mortal to do it for them and they do not create or manipulate things of the material world.

Their powers are purely spiritual and their influence in the world is via their churches and saints.

Indeed.
I wish LMMB would write a complete explicit theology on her website.

[Peelee]

I would be remiss if I didn't mention Georges "what if we used cinema to make fiction also I'm just going to invent every practical effect" Méliès as having (probably) a better claim to that title.

Well, I did say "arguably" for a reason. And even then, you could always liken Hitchcock to Newton in the sense of "on the shoulders of giants".

[Fyraltari]

Well, I did say "arguably" for a reason.

The same one I did say "probably".

And even then, you could always liken Hitchcock to Newton in the sense of "on the shoulders of giants".

That's from Bernard of Chartres.

[Peelee]

That's from Bernard of Chartres.

Shoe still fits.

[Fyraltari]

Shoe still fits.

It does with most everybody. It's just that Sir Isaac already has enpugh accomplishments under his belt, he doesn't need to be credited with quotes he didn't come up with.

[bunsen_h]

I wish LMMB would write a complete explicit theology on her website.

She tends not to want to be locked down on details that haven't come out in stories yet, since that can get in the way of having a "better idea" later.

[Peelee]

It does with most everybody.

.... No? Imean, the Bernard version of "we are like dwarves on the shoulders of giants", sure, that fits everybody, but Newtons variation of "if I have seen further than others" clearly implies great achievement on the person's own behalf, which most certainly does not fit everyone else - in this case, just the few people that could be called "arguably the most influential figure in filmmaking."

If my intent was not clear, I apologize, and I will say that that is how I meant "shoulders of giants" and "shoe fits" to be interpreted.

[Fyraltari]

.... No? Imean, the Bernard version of "we are like dwarves on the shoulders of giants", sure, that fits everybody, but Newtons variation of "if I have seen further than others" clearly implies great achievement on the person's own behalf, which most certainly does not fit everyone else - in this case, just the few people that could be called "arguably the most influential figure in filmmaking."

Newton's version only implies making some progress in a given field. At least that's how I read it.

If my intent was not clear, I apologize, and I will say that that is how I meant "shoulders of giants" and "shoe fits" to be interpreted.

Okie-dokie.

[BarakDeathBlade]

New comic is up.

[Fyraltari]

New comic is up.

We are aware.

[Oxenstierna]

I know I'm late in the day on the whole 'mystery box' thing, (and should probably find and watch the JJ Abrams TED talk mentioned to check my understanding), but from what I'm reading here, it seems JJ doesn't really understand the use of 'mystery boxes'; even as mystery boxes. In the real world, a store might bundle up some things in a 'mystery box' to sell. For sales, activating the gambling instinct tends to be addictive, and so can be highly effective: as proven by Wizards of the Coast with Magic the Gathering cards and booster packs. I'm sure everyone can think of a few other examples. The payoff for the buyer is in taking a gamble as to whether the box is worth the price; not the suspense in imagining the mystery contents.

How might this concept work in stories? I think that from the mystery fans build up theories (which represent the contents to be revealed). The point is that to get the payoff, the box has to be opened. The fans might find the 'cards' to be a rare foil-lined super shiny and be surprisingly pleased, a run-of-the-mill set which they sort-of-predicted (and be satisfied), or a bunch of junk and be disappointed. Throwing in a 'mystery' and leaving it is like giving someone a card booster pack they can't open. Ultimately it may as well be empty, and that's how someone will likely be left feeling with no resolution.

In general, mystery stories and 'mysteries in stories' seem super-popular, so it makes sense to try and include them. For example, detective who-dunnits are an entire genre, and secret villains revealed at the end of the story arc are common in all sorts of fiction. They all get the mystery resolved though. Offhand, those that don't get a resolution tend to be horror, where it's a common technique to leave people in terrified suspense or lingering dread, and science fiction, where it is common to invoke wonder or awe at technology and concepts beyond our current understanding.

Now, to be fair, it sounds like JJ doesn't want to make the mystery the grand story focus with his 'mystery box'. It seems he wants to use it as a sort of world-building technique. Throw in a cool sounding thing or leave drifting plot questions as to what happened. Let the fans have fun dreaming up the rest of their imaginary world! If so, I think he hits trouble there too, as this is almost the opposite of how I see world building usually working.

In fantasy Tolkien seems to be unavoidable in talking about world building. Hidden behind the 'middle-earth' he populates, there are not mysteries, but details. Entire languages with only a brief utterance in the main story, not only exist in detailed notes, but he has them changing over time. Histories of races and kingdoms fill the appendices, the family trees of hobbits and royalty, etc. The 'mystery box' of Frodo saying 'O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!' is there to be opened; just not really explained in the main story. Again, I'm sure everyone can think of examples from the most popular imaginary worlds: Star Wars, Harry Potter, Marvel, DC. They all have details behind the main stories. Whether revealed at some future point, added to some 'expanded universe' content, or simply left in the writer's notes, they give the fans the sense that there is a full world without having to show it all at once.

How strong is the desire for a full world? Where multiple writers over time have left a string of unresolved 'mystery' questions (comics seem to be the main culprit - why did Hero X not just use Power Y again?), such is demand from fans for more coherence that reboots, resets, and back-story changes are frequently woven into the mythology (with varying success). I suspect this will be the ultimate fate of these JJ Abrams 'mystery boxes'. That is, if they want to keep selling the fans on the fictional universe as a whole.

[Rogar Demonblud]

You make me realize that when JJA says 'mystery box' much of the time what he means is 'noodle incident', with a side dish of 'too much emphasis'.

[Fyraltari]

In fantasy Tolkien seems to be unavoidable in talking about world building. Hidden behind the 'middle-earth' he populates, there are not mysteries, but details. Entire languages with only a brief utterance in the main story, not only exist in detailed notes, but he has them changing over time. Histories of races and kingdoms fill the appendices, the family trees of hobbits and royalty, etc. The 'mystery box' of Frodo saying 'O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!' is there to be opened; just not really explained in the main story.

Which is not to say that Tolkien didn't like to leave mysteries in his work. Tom Bombadil is the obvious example, but one could also cite the fate of the Ent-wives, the fate of Radagast and the Blue Wizards, Ungoliant, third Age Gothmog or the nameless things of Moria. However all those things are barely tangential to the plot and so rather inconsequential. Not getting an answer to them makes the world seems deeper and more mysterious without getting in the way of the plot.

[Ruck]

However all those things are barely tangential to the plot and so rather inconsequential. Not getting an answer to them makes the world seems deeper and more mysterious without getting in the way of the plot.

Right-- the thing about an Abrams Mystery Box is that the answer is supposed to be central to the entire story, but he doesn't have an answer when he comes up with them.

[locksmith of lo]

Heh, my site's secure settings are having some problems so my avatar wasn't working. So I used this one, but on this site it's strangely zoomed in.

this makes me laugh, because it makes your avatar so accidentally aggressive.

[Ruck]

this makes me laugh, because it makes your avatar so accidentally aggressive.

Yeah, it kind of cracks me up too. It's like the avatar equivalent of shouting "HELLO!" at someone.

Back to Abrams for a second: I forgot about this from a conversation about Abrams I was partaking in about a year ago.

Spoiler: the image is oddly large

Show

[Goblin_Priest]

Which is not to say that Tolkien didn't like to leave mysteries in his work. Tom Bombadil is the obvious example, but one could also cite the fate of the Ent-wives, the fate of Radagast and the Blue Wizards, Ungoliant, third Age Gothmog or the nameless things of Moria. However all those things are barely tangential to the plot and so rather inconsequential. Not getting an answer to them makes the world seems deeper and more mysterious without getting in the way of the plot.

Indeed, the reader doesn't need to know it all. Many would often say that the reader needs to know a whole lot less than what Tolkien grants, already (see: endless descriptions).

But when the story is basically: a mysterious girl from an unknown background goes on an unknown quest for unknown reasons, teams up with other unknown allies, picks up a great legacy weapon that was obtained in an unknown way, to defeat a guy that is evil for unknown reasons...

I mean, it's not even that all of these are forgotten details, a lot of these are purposefully left out. And then you get a ham-fisted answer to them because there's just too little time to answer way too many questions. Which causes inevitable bloat down the line, as subsequent movies not only need to answer their own questions, but also the prequels' questions.

I mean, talking of prequels, the prequel trilogy took 3 entire movies to show Anakin turning to the dark side. The sequels showed how Ben was raised with a loving family but turned evil with like a minute and a half's worth of flashback.

I mean, seriously, why is Ben evil? "Too much of his grandfather"? The hell? Anakin was a conflicted but well-intentioned protagonist up until the moment that years of repression and manipulation made him crack. But even then, in the final moments before turning, he did so "to save Padmé" and "to uphold the jedi way". It's ironic, really, but right before killing all the younglings, why did he "save" Palpatine? Because executing a head of state is not the jedi way, he was appalled that Mace Windu would avoid a trial by murdering him in cold blood, performing a putsch.

Anakin didn't go on the path of evil for the sake of being evil. He meant good, but was twisted and manipulated his whole life, and we saw most of that on screen, and referenced to when not directly seen. He grew up loveless, and when he finally found love, he was forced to repress it, because his order opposed such sentiments.

Ben? Had two loving parents. A loving uncle. Grew up in what was a time of peace, for all we can tell, or at least just about. Good socio-economic status. Even if you had a Snoke-a-tine in the back whispering "be evil!" at him his whole life, it doesn't make sense that he'd just turn evil for the sake of being evil, and that he'd have such a contact to begin with.

But the sequels needed a villain, so Abrams just decided "Okay, so we left off the OT with the empire being defeated and peace in the galaxy... so let's resume with everyone being in the same starting positions as in ANH, with no explanation as to why we've undone all the progress the good guys made in the OT".

[Peelee]

I mean, talking of prequels, the prequel trilogy took 3 entire movies to show Anakin turning to the dark side.

2 movies (though I would argue 1, honestly).

[Fyraltari]

2 movies (though I would argue 1, honestly).

Ah come on, what's a little slaughter between friends, heh?

[Peelee]

Ah come on, what's a little slaughter between friends, heh?

Interspersed with pining for tyranny. I know that my dating life never got off the ground until I started working "I think a dictatorship would be nice" into my flirting.

[Fyraltari]

Interspersed with pining for tyranny. I know that my dating life never got off the ground until I started working "I think a dictatorship would be nice" into my flirting.

Have you tried being creepily possesive, though? I hear it works best when you rant about no-one is giving you the respect you deserve but you'll show them all.

[Peelee]

Have you tried being creepily possesive, though? I hear it works best when you rant about no-one is giving you the respect you deserve but you'll show them all.

My problem was just killing men. If I'd killed women and children too, I'd have gotten way more dates.

[Goblin_Priest]

2 movies (though I would argue 1, honestly).

How so?

Movie 1, his slave life is portrayed, he gets taken from his mother, his primary sponsor is killed, and he's left under the tutorship of someone who didn't want to take him in to begin with.

Movie 2, he's tormented by the fate of his mother. He goes to save her, but then takes revenge via genocide. He falls enamored with Padmé, gets rejected. Constantly belittled by everyone close to him. Openly vents his frustration about the Republic's inability to fix the problems of the galaxy. Padmé finally gives in to his advances and they enter a repressed clandestine relationship.

Movie 3, more repressed clandestine relationship, more belittlement from the jedi, constant visions of his wife dying, prodded about non-jedi ways to save her, asked by the council to become a spy against his political sponsor, faced with the jedi attempting a putsch by assassinating the elected head of state which happens to be the guy that had always been the most friendly and supportive of him (in appearance, anyways).

I mean, sure, Anakin comes late in ep.1, but it still sets the background for his fall to evil: Hardship in youth, orphaned twice (Schmii and Qui-Gon), thrown into a violent religious order (Jedi) and made a child soldier (Battle over Naboo). Not to mention the podracing, which granted he was super willing to participate in by himself, but he was essentially going on a suicide mission for the benefit of Qui-Gon. Everything Anakin goes through in ep.1 is pretty messed up. So I'm not sure how'd you sum up his fall to evil as being a 1 movie thing.

Even if it were, though, still beats the zero seconds Ben's got in TFA (or a single line if you want to take in "He's got too much Vader"), and but a single brief flashback in TLJ.

It made it blatantly clear that Ben was going to be redeemed in the end, which made all of their attempts to portray him as "evil" sound phony. Though less bad than the attempts to make us believe Mary Sue could be tempted by evil, which were really laughable.

[Fyraltari]

I don't speak for Peelee but at the end of Ep1 Anakin's a rather upbeat child who has just joined the Order and at the end of Ep2, he's a mass-murderer who's flirting with authoritarianism and defying the tenets of the Jedi. So one can say that Anakin's fall was arguably a one movie thing.

[Peelee]

I don't speak for Peelee but at the end of Ep1 Anakin's a rather upbeat child who has just joined the Order and at the end of Ep2, he's a mass-murderer who's flirting with authoritarianism and defying the tenets of the Jedi. So one can say that Anakin's fall was arguably a one movie thing.

Indeed, Fyraltari does not speak for me here. Because he goes so far as to see Episode I Anakin as a character while I see him as a plot device.

Aside from that, though, he could totally speak for me here. Anakin was gone in Episode II. Episode III was just a forty-minute lightsaber fight to justify the rest of the movie, in which Anakin had already fallen.

[Fyraltari]

Indeed, Fyraltari does not speak for me here. Because he goes so far as to see Episode I Anakin as a character while I see him as a plot device.

Aside from that, though, he could totally speak for me here. Anakin was gone in Episode II. Episode III was just a forty-minute lightsaber fight to justify the rest of the movie, in which Anakin had already fallen.

In RotS he should be fallen, but the movies don't present him as such. This is my main gripe with the Prequel Trilogy, instead of merely explaining Darth Vader it is trying to excuse Darth Vader.

[Peelee]

In RotS he should be fallen, but the movies don't present him as such.

I think they do. Just because the Jedi are presented as too bored to care and haven't kicked him out yet doesn't mean he wasn't already Evil by then.

[Fyraltari]

I think they do. Just because the Jedi are presented as too bored to care and haven't kicked him out yet doesn't mean he wasn't already Evil by then.

RotS frames his maiming of Windu (and following attack on the Temple) as the moment of his Fall. All events before are presented as stepping stones, lapses in judgement he could have recovered from had he come to his senses. Which is why the Tusken slaughter happens mostly off-screen. Having it be described by Anakin rather than shown to us allow the movie to keep the focus on Anakin's feelings rather than, you know, the deaths. If it were shown to us, we would empathize with the murdered rather than the murderer which would make Anakin unsympathetic to us which is the opposite of what the Prequel Trilogy aims at. Rather than a personal descent into vilainy stemming from the character's flaws it structures itself after Greek tragedies where the hero is trapped by Fate, devoid of agency. This results in Anakin becoming Vader not out of a deliberate choice on his part but because he was put in a bad situation. To this end every actual wrongdoing on Anakin's part is glossed over to focus o how bad he feels. Hence why Padmé is fine marriying a mass-murderer and soesn't think it's an issue that should be brought up with anybody.

[Oxenstierna]

Which is not to say that Tolkien didn't like to leave mysteries in his work. Tom Bombadil is the obvious example, but one could also cite the fate of the Ent-wives, the fate of Radagast and the Blue Wizards, Ungoliant, third Age Gothmog or the nameless things of Moria. However all those things are barely tangential to the plot and so rather inconsequential. Not getting an answer to them makes the world seems deeper and more mysterious without getting in the way of the plot.

Yes, you're absolutely right. I should add 'invoke a melancholic sense of things lost' to my effective uses of mystery list... It applies to the Entwives and the departure of the Elves from the world. As you say, people aren't really left pondering on the mystery. In my opinion it's more a closure: they're confirmed as gone as the world moves on. The nameless things in the dark would already be covered by the typical horror use - there are some things best left buried. It's tricky to know with some of Tolkien's things whether he left them deliberately mysterious; rather than being simply unfinished or skipped over to work on stories elsewhere. A common problem with world building is where to stop. Easy to get carried away - stat out every farmer, have a sub-quest for every courtier! Somewhere I read Christopher Tolkien saying he used to bug his father about the rest of the wizards and their adventures. Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge would be able to say if they ever got put in notes, or if the Silmarillion and so on were his focus; rather than revisiting the third age. I guess these days the pressure to expand the 'franchise' by building off already popular characters and concepts would be unbearable... get your Blue Wizard vs. Gandalf the Grey deathmatch action-figure-set here (hobbits sold separately)!