 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You only think so because you've convinces yourself in your mind it would. All you have to is change the theory of Psycohistory into something that was gained by magic. Why does the theory formed by magic have to be perfect? So that it won't fit and you can claim it is different? Magic doesn't have to be perfect and a theory formed by magical means may have to be constantly revised. |
Why does somethingt attained magically have to be perfect? The question should by why it would NOT be, given what magic is. Magic is supposedly some sort of universal force, an objective power than can be harnessed by individuals for a variety of uses, but it exists independently of anything else. Revelation by Magic might as well be, and probably would be just the same as revelation by GOD. So John was a scientist? Besides, there is not THEORY in magic- you are starting to sound like a creation "scientist"- what hypothesis was there? I did a spell, BOOM< got answer. That's science? Oh, my, I opened a book, BOOM, the answer! Look at my theory!.  Magical revelation is NOT the same as scientific theory.
quote:
Why does a future predicted using magic have to be perfect? What hard fast rule says that may be so? Don't people knowing of the prediction change their actions and thus change the prediction? |
Did you even read the Foundation series? First, the only reason that Harry Seldon is able to come up with his theory in the first place was because of the immense size of his sample (millions of worlds, quadrillions of human beings) and the very long span of history. Hence, finally someone had enough data to work with. You could be the only person on earth and get magical revelation-not even the mearest pretense of science is needed. Second, his theory begins to break down not because of his own actions- if a scientist knows that their actions will change outcomes, they can also learn how, and then manipulate the outcomes- this is fact is the POINT of Seldon's Foundation, to try to cut short the time of anarchy he saw coming in order to make sure the new empire was formed in a much shorter period of time. The reason the theory has to be reworked is because data appears that had NOT been part of Seldon's work (Seldon did not acocunt for telepaths), and in the future of the series, people set out to trace back the data even further than Seldon could (given the loss of the history from Earth and the Spacer worlds).
So, underlying the whole story is NOT just having foreknowledge of the future, its about trying to manipulate history using a theory of history and then finding that inconvinient new data comes up forcing rethinks and new goals. Magical revelation is a very different thing and the theme would have to change significantly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Troi? More dreadful than Weasley? Or Jake? Or Harry?
The galaxywide scale of SW is important to its success. No weapon on the scale of the Deathstar would make sense in a planetbound fantasy world. It destroys entire planets. The idea of many more people involved than could coexist on one planet is important. The knowledge of how remote the setting is is important.
Fantasy includes SF, SF includes Fantasy, both accusations have been made. SF is much more agreeable.
Scientific knowledge can be obtained without repeating someone else's research. We aren't all expected to observe everything in the universe firsthand, are we?
Magic is not always depicted as being perfect. Sometimes it doesn't work as intended. Maybe said magical revelation is completely false?
Revelation by God is science based, moreso than by magic anyway.
Who says there's not theory in magic? If magic existed, the magician would have to learn how to do it such that it worked. Besides, all magic really is is science that isn't yet understood.
Oh, and telepathy is fantasy at least as much as SF.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
the only thing that I think can be said, appart from setting (fantasy setting (swords and dragons and elves) versus science fiction setting (robots and spaceships and aliens)) is hard science fiction versus not
hard science fiction uses extrapolations of current science..
stuff that isn't (Star Wars + Star Trek both fall under this) don't (the force is about the same level as telepathy, so I consider these two to have equal claim to the title science fiction)
Jon Miller
(if you think that there is anymore basis for telepathy than magic, then excuse me while I laugh at you)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Where is the weaseling here except on your part? A film can't use things that have been done before (but are not cliche) and because of its success spawn so many imitators that it becomes cliche?
|
The point is that stuff WAS cliche before Star Wars. Nearly every element in SW's plot was cliche--that's part of why it was successful. Lucas repackaged the very familiar using high-tech special effects.
quote:
Though, of course that doesn't makes the pieces cliche, as Boris has asserted. |
No, that they were in mythology doesn't make them cliche (which I never asserted), that they were plot devices being used since movies began is what made them cliche.
Have you even read Campbell's work? I have, and one of the things you'd realize is that he also shows how countless other stories use the same plot devices. Yes, even movies, even ones prior to SW. Even science fiction ones.
quote:
The only real cliche in SW was the whole chosen one stuff. Other things had been done before, but were far from cliche. |
Oh come on.
"Rogue" turning good = cliche
Lowly farm boy (or what have you) becomes legendary hero = cliche
Evil bad guy all in black - cliche
Princess in distress = cliche
Mystical old man mentor = cliche
That's not to say that SW overall is one big cliche, but there are certainly a lot more elements than the "chosen one" aspect. Hell, if you're willing to excuse away these cliches, the chosen one plot isn't so bad, either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
I think the point is that Star Wars combines many cliches in an original way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. There are a range of powers granted by the Force that go well beyond telepathy (telekenises, for example).
But the Force is essentially magical, yes. Then again, so was Q. |
what I mean is that there is the same level of scientific evidence for the Force as there is for Telepathy
Jon miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
"Rogue" turning good = cliche
Lowly farm boy (or what have you) becomes legendary hero = cliche
Evil bad guy all in black - cliche
Princess in distress = cliche
Mystical old man mentor = cliche |
I'll give you princess in distress. Mystical old mentor is part of the chosen one cliche. But rogue turning good? Where was the cliche in that? Even today that isn't done that often. There is rough character with the heart of gold, but not the ******* who gets redeemed at the end. Make no mistake, Han was an ******* in ANH until the end. In many action movies today a character like Han gets killed by the bad guys.
|
too be fair, this mgiht not be the case for the special addition
Jon Miller
(Greedo shooting first...)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
yeah.. I hated it also
I want to buy an edition that has Greedo shooting first..
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brent
No weapon on the scale of the Deathstar would make sense in a planetbound fantasy world. It destroys entire planets. |
Somebody else could make a bigger weapon that destroys entire star systems. Who cares? It's not the point. It's just like a dragon on a planet, something big and horrible and nasty and can do lots of damage.
quote:
Originally posted by Brent
Who says there's not theory in magic? |
If magic can be theorised and studied like electromagnetism, it ceases to be magic.
Last edited by Urban Ranger on 12-04-2005 at 07:31
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2005 18:39
.
Which one is it?
Attachment: 
|
