Darths & Droids VI: Thread title will appear here when received

[Anonymouswizard]

I have heard the term Science-Fantasy used for SW in the past.

Yeah, just the average member of the public tells me I'm making the term up. For them it's easier to just insist on 'it's a fantasy IN SPAAAAACE!'.

The distinction between sci-fi and fantasy is blurry, but that's not their fault. All genre classification (and to a certain degree, all classification) is like that.

Where's the line between thriller, detective fiction, spy fiction and horror?

I'm not sure, but they're separated from police dramas by a thin blue line.

Today's comic:

Spoiler: Later in the film

Show

So whether this is Poor Allan I'm wondering how this interacts with Poe blowing up Starkiller Base later in the film.

Although to be fair Finn is also a FO agent, and Han might well be on their payroll. Maybe the FO decides to get rid of the time travelling superweapon.

[Taevyr]

Yeah, most fantasy and sci-fi shares the same fundamental element of "what if" in how their settings are created, built and explore certain themes or possibilities, with either "science" or "magic" being used as the explanation, but I wouldn't say that's enough to make them nearly the same genre. If so, we could lump it in with every post-apocalyptic setting that uses "radiation" as the explanation for everything weird about the setting.

Star Wars blurs the lines, but the Force is the only truly fantastical element: reflavour it as an oddly broad branch of psionics (perhaps some "psionic chemistry" to account for sith alchemy), and the setting is entirely soft sci-fi. It's one of the reasons I tend to particularly enjoy the stories within the setting that don't follow force users as the main plot: those seem to be the ones most willing to explore and expand the setting beyond "religious force wars that just keep repeating".

[Aeson]

Star Wars blurs the lines, but the Force is the only truly fantastical element: reflavour it as an oddly broad branch of psionics (perhaps some "psionic chemistry" to account for sith alchemy), and the setting is entirely soft sci-fi.

Psionics is literally magic by another name, so I really don't see what distinction you're drawing here when you say that the Force needs to be 'reflavored' as a branch of psionics in order for Star Wars to fully fit into soft sci-fi.

[Fyraltari]

Psionics is literally magic by another name, so I really don't see what distinction you're drawing here when you say that the Force needs to be 'reflavored' as a branch of psionics in order for Star Wars to fully fit into soft sci-fi.

Taking the religious aspect out?

[Anonymouswizard]

Taking the religious aspect out?

I mean, religion and magic aren't considered inherently connected these days.

But yeah, psionics generally seem scientific due to more often running on Sufficiently Analysed Magic (meanwhile pulp style 'mad science' seems magical because it runs on 'no plans, no prototype'). Which is different to it having rules, psionics are just more likely to be presented as researched and codified in-setting than other kinds of magic.

[Aeson]

Taking the religious aspect out?

Because having a character who's lived basically his entire life in a monastic order and is essentially a monk or priest of his faith speak about something that he believes touches on his faith in dry, objective, scientific language instead of giving his religion-colored take on it - particularly when talking to someone he's trying to recruit into his faith - makes the setting more science-y and believable?

There's nothing wrong with having religious characters in a sci-fi setting - it's certainly more believable than literally everyone (or, at least, everyone who isn't a 'savage' or a 'barbarian' or some other such thing) in a sci-fi setting being atheists, especially when dealing with the sort of sci-fi setting that contains one or more fields of magic psionics or the Force or whatever else the setting's not-magic is called - and there's nothing wrong with having those characters put a religious bent on any exposition that they give - particularly when they're attempting to recruit someone to their faith or monastic order or whatnot; the audience just needs to remember that just because someone in the setting says that something is the case doesn't necessarily mean that it is the case. Furthermore, there is the context of the scenes where the characters provide exposition about the not-magic - Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon, and Yoda may be mentor figures to Anakin and Luke, but they're old warrior-monks grooming their pupils to follow in their footsteps and become warrior-monks of the Jedi faith, not secular educators preparing their pupils to go off to university and get a B.S. in Force Metaphysics or Force-ology whatever else you want to call a hypothetical scientific field studying the Force.

[Taevyr]

Taking the religious aspect out?

I mean, religion and magic aren't considered inherently connected these days.

But yeah, psionics generally seem scientific due to more often running on Sufficiently Analysed Magic (meanwhile pulp style 'mad science' seems magical because it runs on 'no plans, no prototype'). Which is different to it having rules, psionics are just more likely to be presented as researched and codified in-setting than other kinds of magic.

This, essentially. If the Force were treated more like, for example, biotics in Mass Effect, there'd be a lot fewer people seeing it as straight "magic", and star wars'd feel less fantasy-like as a result, I believe: sure, mechanically both are essentially magic, but one's treated as a mystical Force and the other as a fully scientific, quantified, known effect. In the end, it's indeed mainly the semantics of how the "magic" is explained as I doubt many people think of Mass Effect as science fantasy, despite having a fully female race of telekineticists that can live for a millenium with the ability to mind meld with people.

Not that I mean the Force should be treated that way: I enjoy the mystical, religious aspects of it and wouldn't want to see that focus change, though it'd be interesting to see someone explore it scientifically, whether they believe the religious aspects or not. But having it consistently be treated that way is, in my view, the main reason Star Wars is often seen as "science-fantasy".

[Gez]

Religion is perfectly compatible with sci-fi, just look at Dune. (Okay, so it's Space-Lawrence of Space-Arabia, but it's still sci-fi.)

[SirKazum]

Religion is perfectly compatible with sci-fi, just look at Dune. (Okay, so it's Space-Lawrence of Space-Arabia, but it's still sci-fi.)

I feel like that's a weird example though, since religion itself is sort of "scientificized" in Dune, what with the Missionaria Protectiva and whatnot. I mean, it's analyzed to the point it sorta loses all mysticism, and/or employed as a deliberate, constructed thing by characters such as the Bene Gesserit and later Leto II.

[Fyraltari]

This, essentially. If the Force were treated more like, for example, biotics in Mass Effect, there'd be a lot fewer people seeing it as straight "magic", and star wars'd feel less fantasy-like as a result, I believe: sure, mechanically both are essentially magic, but one's treated as a mystical Force and the other as a fully scientific, quantified, known effect. In the end, it's indeed mainly the semantics of how the "magic" is explained as I doubt many people think of Mass Effect as science fantasy, despite having a fully female race of telekineticists that can live for a millenium with the ability to mind meld with people.

Not that I mean the Force should be treated that way: I enjoy the mystical, religious aspects of it and wouldn't want to see that focus change, though it'd be interesting to see someone explore it scientifically, whether they believe the religious aspects or not. But having it consistently be treated that way is, in my view, the main reason Star Wars is often seen as "science-fantasy".

Religion is perfectly compatible with sci-fi, just look at Dune. (Okay, so it's Space-Lawrence of Space-Arabia, but it's still sci-fi.)

Characters in Dune are religious, but the setting itself is not. The supernatural elements are all framed as "natural" within this universe.

On the other hand, the Force in Star Wars defies explanation. It cannot be quantified or measured.

[Kornaki]

On the other hand, the Force in Star Wars defies explanation. It cannot be quantified or measured.

Aren't midichlorians literally a measurement of force power, and I guess we all just hated it so much we decided to never mention it again oh I see what's going on now.

[Fyraltari]

Aren't midichlorians literally a measurement of force power, and I guess we all just hated it so much we decided to never mention it again oh I see what's going on now.

They are a measurement of how sensitive one is to the Force, but nothing else.

[Gez]

Characters in Dune are religious, but the setting itself is not. The supernatural elements are all framed as "natural" within this universe.

On the other hand, the Force in Star Wars defies explanation. It cannot be quantified or measured.

I don't see why religion should involve the existence of the supernatural in the setting. At its core, religion is about myths, spirituality, and ritualism -- something that gives a group some amount of social cohesion, by establishing baseline beliefs, values, and socialization. The myths don't need to be true, the spirituality doesn't need to be profound, and the rituals don't need to be rational. All you really need is for most everyone to participate.

As for the Force, it depends on your personal canon.

[Fyraltari]

I don't see why religion should involve the existence of the supernatural in the setting. At its core, religion is about myths, spirituality, and ritualism -- something that gives a group some amount of social cohesion, by establishing baseline beliefs, values, and socialization. The myths don't need to be true, the spirituality doesn't need to be profound, and the rituals don't need to be rational. All you really need is for most everyone to participate.

I don't think, you get my point. Characters and setting being religious are unrelated. You can have a story about faith in a setting with no supernatural elements at all. And you can have a story that's not about religion at all but where the existence of a god or several is indisputable fact.

In Dune, the Fremen religion is central to the plot and the setting (from the second book on), but the metaphysical apsects of it, like the existence of Shai-Hulud (beyond the actual physical worms) and Shaitan don't feature in the story.

In Star Wars, most people are non-religious, but the divine entiry known as the Force does exist and features heavily into the plot.

One has religious characters in a non-religious setting, the other has (mostly) non-religious characters in a religious setting.

As for the Force, it depends on your personal canon.

The Force was framed from the first movie onward as a mystical phenomenon, with no-other explanation for it presented. There are people who don't believe it exists, but there are no (at least in the main movies) characters who acknowledge its existence but frame it materialistically. The movies are inequivocal about it being a religious thing.

Edit: to give a more concrete example: if this was a setting with psionics à la Mass Effect or something, for Obi-Wan's consciousness to survive bodily death, a scan of his brain would have to be stored on some material object somewhere. But that's not how it works in Star Wars, his soul survived bodily death, because there is in fact such a thing as a soul that can ascend to an afterlife by transcend ing flesh to become one with the pandeistic truth of the universe.

[VoxRationis]

I just noticed an odd detail in the stormtrooper armor in the last panel. The stormtrooper in this scene has on his left hip a secondary plate that's sort of under the main thigh guard and extends into the gap between it and the codpiece (something that looks like it must be absolutely terrible for basic movement), but on the right, there's no such plate, and just a very broad gap (that is, no less, highlighted as a target by being black against the white of the armor). Do all the First Order troopers have that setup?

No, I looked it up, and they definitely do not. I suspect the actor in this scene just has a longer thigh than did the average extra they used and the costume department had to make do. Seems like an ugly hack for a billion-dollar movie or whatever the budget was, but I suppose John Williams doesn't work for cheap.

This reminds me, though, of a common trend I see in sci-fi armors (which have some odd tendency to be almost uniformly plate-based) in that the costume designers seem to not want their characters to look too much like late medieval/early modern knights and therefore eschew a lot of the pieces viewers might see as looking "medieval" (such as rondels, faulds, or just generally a lot of historical armor about the hips, because they tend to have a skirt-like appearance). Yet if the idea is that people are protecting the human body from harm with a system of rigid plates while retaining as much of the range of motion as possible, historical full plate is probably one of the best, most-optimized systems for doing that exact thing that has ever existed. Sure, you could strip out a variety of the decorative elements (or, if it's that kind of setting, replace them with different ones appropriate to the culture), but the form of the armor for something like Mass Effect or Star Wars* should be well-served by being the same as that of historical plate.


*I've chosen these examples and not, say, Halo because they avoid the complicating factor of the armors being powered, as ME and SW armors generally are not.

[Fyraltari]

No, I looked it up, and they definitely do not. I suspect the actor in this scene just has a longer thigh than did the average extra they used and the costume department had to make do. Seems like an ugly hack for a billion-dollar movie or whatever the budget was, but I suppose John Williams doesn't work for cheap.

I think that actor is Daniel Craig.

This reminds me, though, of a common trend I see in sci-fi armors (which have some odd tendency to be almost uniformly plate-based) in that the costume designers seem to not want their characters to look too much like late medieval/early modern knights and therefore eschew a lot of the pieces viewers might see as looking "medieval" (such as rondels, faulds, or just generally a lot of historical armor about the hips, because they tend to have a skirt-like appearance).

Of course. They need the materials for the OVERSIZED PAULDRONS.

[LeSwordfish]

I just noticed an odd detail in the stormtrooper armor in the last panel. The stormtrooper in this scene has on his left hip a secondary plate that's sort of under the main thigh guard and extends into the gap between it and the codpiece (something that looks like it must be absolutely terrible for basic movement), but on the right, there's no such plate, and just a very broad gap (that is, no less, highlighted as a target by being black against the white of the armor). Do all the First Order troopers have that setup?

No, I looked it up, and they definitely do not. I suspect the actor in this scene just has a longer thigh than did the average extra they used and the costume department had to make do. Seems like an ugly hack for a billion-dollar movie or whatever the budget was, but I suppose John Williams doesn't work for cheap.

This reminds me, though, of a common trend I see in sci-fi armors (which have some odd tendency to be almost uniformly plate-based) in that the costume designers seem to not want their characters to look too much like late medieval/early modern knights and therefore eschew a lot of the pieces viewers might see as looking "medieval" (such as rondels, faulds, or just generally a lot of historical armor about the hips, because they tend to have a skirt-like appearance). Yet if the idea is that people are protecting the human body from harm with a system of rigid plates while retaining as much of the range of motion as possible, historical full plate is probably one of the best, most-optimized systems for doing that exact thing that has ever existed. Sure, you could strip out a variety of the decorative elements (or, if it's that kind of setting, replace them with different ones appropriate to the culture), but the form of the armor for something like Mass Effect or Star Wars* should be well-served by being the same as that of historical plate.


*I've chosen these examples and not, say, Halo because they avoid the complicating factor of the armors being powered, as ME and SW armors generally are not.

I don't think that's an extra plate, I think it's the strap of his gun. You can see it hang vertically across his "codpiece" as well.

This particular stormtrooper is Daniel Craig, of course. I can't speak for the length of his thighs.

[KillianHawkeye]

I just noticed an odd detail in the stormtrooper armor in the last panel. The stormtrooper in this scene has on his left hip a secondary plate that's sort of under the main thigh guard and extends into the gap between it and the codpiece (something that looks like it must be absolutely terrible for basic movement), but on the right, there's no such plate, and just a very broad gap (that is, no less, highlighted as a target by being black against the white of the armor). Do all the First Order troopers have that setup?

That's not a gap between two plates, that's the black shoulder strap of his rifle hanging down in front of him.

EDIT: Oops, ninjas!

[Anonymouswizard]

Of course. They need the materials for the OVERSIZED PAULDRONS.

I mean how else would you stop laser blasts from hitting your head?

[Fyraltari]

I mean how else would you stop laser blasts from hitting your head?

Through dodgy means.

[Anonymouswizard]

Through dodgy means.

That doesn't sound reliable.

[Aeson]

I mean how else would you stop laser blasts from hitting your head?

Yeah, helmets and personal shields are so much less practical.


Regarding the discussion about sci-fi and the supernatural, I have to say that I feel it's a bit of a double standard to be fine with unexplained and unquantified magic when it's called a technology (e.g. hyperdrive) but not fine with unexplained and unquantified magic when it's essentially a difference between the rules of physics as we know them and the rules of physics as they exist in the setting (e.g. telekinesis). Beyond that, if sci-fi is an exploration of how something affects society, then I have to ask, is a discussion of how telekinesis obeys/evades Newton's Laws or how you can measure somebody's ultimate magical potential with a blood test or whatever really a better way of exploring how the magic affected society than having a monk talk about his faith in the context of the magic?

Oh, and regarding the "the Force is unquantifiable" thing, that's a bit debatable. We know from the movies that there's a blood test whose results correlate with Force sensitivity, and there's also old EU material which has remote detectors for Force use and Force ability as well as Force-based or Force-created or Force-conjured lightsabers, hyperdrives, etc. which were later essentially reverse-engineered, replicated, and eventually replaced by the technological lightsabers, hyperdrives, etc. familiar from the movies and most other Star Wars material.

[VoxRationis]

I don't think that's an extra plate, I think it's the strap of his gun. You can see it hang vertically across his "codpiece" as well.

That's not a gap between two plates, that's the black shoulder strap of his rifle hanging down in front of him.

EDIT: Oops, ninjas!

I stand corrected.

[InvisibleBison]

I mean how else would you stop laser blasts from hitting your head?

In my experience, the best method to avoid head injuries is to not have a head.

[The Glyphstone]

In my experience, the best method to avoid head injuries is to not have a head.

Aren't head injuries the #1 leading cause of not having a head though? So statistically, to reach that point of headlessness you must have suffered at least one head injury.

[Fyraltari]

Aren't head injuries the #1 leading cause of not having a head though? So statistically, to reach that point of headlessness you must have suffered at least one head injury.

I thought that was neck injuries.

[SirKazum]

Aren't head injuries the #1 leading cause of not having a head though? So statistically, to reach that point of headlessness you must have suffered at least one head injury.

That's called "regression to the mean". The accumulation of head injuries naturally leads to a reduction in head injury.

[theangelJean]

In today's comic, the one you guys tell me is Daniel Craig asks a rhetorical question. And I don't get it. Is it relevant to the current situation, or is it a dig at the person he's speaking to? In-universe (D&D or Star Wars) or something meta, like an actor allusion?

[b_jonas]

theangelJean: It's an actor allusion, yes. Many of the lines in #2106 are from James Bond movies.

[SirKazum]

theangelJean: It's an actor allusion, yes. Many of the lines in #2106 are from James Bond movies.

The GM is in on it too. It's not "the guard releases your restraints", it's "the guard releases your bonds". Pretty small, but still.