StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Chris Parr wrote:Like Rambo. Everyone remembers Rambo! This wanked out Vietnam vet/super soldier/action hero will always be remembered for charging into a hail of enemy gunfire without his shirt, without one single bullet ever touching him, mowing down insurgents with his BFG like he was some god mode video game character! Yeah baby!

Actually the original Rambo was about a Vietnam vet returning home only to be traumatized by the police and taking revenge. It is the psychological drama of the character that is memorable. The shooting is just a backdrop before which said drama unfolds. The later Rambo movies were just FPS video game made into movie. Now that sort of thing can be entertaining and even fun in a movie. But here is the catch. A movie is very different from a written text. Movies are an audio-visual medium. You can convey a lot of information to the viewer directly without describing anything. So fast paced action scenes work.

Here is a thought experiment for you. Go watch a shooting scene from one of the later Rambo movies. Than pause it and write down a textual description of the same scene. Make sure your description has enough detail that the reader can visualize the scene in his head. Now see if that description is entertaining to read.

Rambo III actually had a number of unintentionally funny moments (which as that movie was 'trying' to be serious action made them only more funny).

Batman wrote:Rambo III actually had a number of unintentionally funny moments (which as that movie was 'trying' to be serious action made them only more funny).

Still, as someone who sees writing as a visual thing (I tend to try and create images for the reader when writing) I can tell you it ain't easy. Especially not in fast paced action scenes. Getting the pace right with just enough information to let the reader keep up but not so much that reading the text it self drives the pace down is hard. You have to know just how much of a gap to leave for his imagination and how much you have to cover. And than you have to economize on that space.

Purple wrote: Here is a thought experiment for you. Go watch a shooting scene from one of the later Rambo movies. Than pause it and write down a textual description of the same scene. Make sure your description has enough detail that the reader can visualize the scene in his head. Now see if that description is entertaining to read.

That...is a brilliant idea. Do you mind if I use this as a challenge for a group of fanfic authors I'm friends with? Some of the newer guys have an obsession with writing "action" scenes but they kinda suck at it.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:

Purple wrote: Here is a thought experiment for you. Go watch a shooting scene from one of the later Rambo movies. Than pause it and write down a textual description of the same scene. Make sure your description has enough detail that the reader can visualize the scene in his head. Now see if that description is entertaining to read.

That...is a brilliant idea. Do you mind if I use this as a challenge for a group of fanfic authors I'm friends with? Some of the newer guys have an obsession with writing "action" scenes but they kinda suck at it.

Feel free to.

Mindless violence has to have some sort of point for it to be interesting, as well as some sort of competing struggles. The key is on struggling, wrestling control and visibly trying hard to win, even if they are doomed to fail. In a fight the writer decides who wins but the writer must present palpable uncertainty and struggle for the fight to be meaningful or at least exciting. Without it the fighting is uninteresting, a random blur of pointless visual clues.

That's the difference between Rambo and countless other action films full of explosions and violence and mayhem that nobody remembers.

EDIT: For reference, I never seen Rambo.

And just a thought: the idea towards the end was interesting. It would create a situation where all the mayor players in the SW universe would have to compete for the loyalty/obedience of the mutant. In a situation where they must act from a base where their accumulated power, authority and deceptions are not enough.

Zixinus wrote:Mindless violence has to have some sort of point for it to be interesting, as well as some sort of competing struggles. The key is on struggling, wrestling control and visibly trying hard to win, even if they are doomed to fail. In a fight the writer decides who wins but the writer must present palpable uncertainty and struggle for the fight to be meaningful or at least exciting. Without it the fighting is uninteresting, a random blur of pointless visual clues.

That is one way to do it. Another is to just provide eye candy to show just how strong and awesome a character is. And whilst this can seem pointless it is actually a plot device that sets him up for later on if exploited right. So some times you do just want to show your character effortlessly defeating a bunch of people so that later when they fight a real threat that fight seems so much grander.

And just a thought: the idea towards the end was interesting. It would create a situation where all the mayor players in the SW universe would have to compete for the loyalty/obedience of the mutant. In a situation where they must act from a base where their accumulated power, authority and deceptions are not enough.

Don't. No one likes having really big plot characters known to everyone drawn in to deal with your special snowflake dude. It newer works out well.

Chris Parr wrote:Or I could write really cheesy fiction with a wanked out main character, lots of explosions, speeder chases, blaster fights, fancy lightsaber duels, etc. You may love the concept, or you may hate it, but you will never forget it.

Actually, the odds are good that we would forget it almost instantly. As Purple notes, the reason you remember the crazy exploding action stuff from summer blockbuster movies is visual special effects. You as a writer cannot duplicate this. You can't make your reader visualize anything more impressive than your own ability to describe what's happening.

And you will NEVER be able to capture pure spectacle as well as a movie can... because by nature, in the time it takes to read the description of a spectacular instant in time, the reader's "ohmigod" reaction to that spectacle has passed.

also there's the fact in a movie the pace is in the hands of the director and alot of those special effects movies have so fast pace that you simply don't have time to ponder the flaws of the story, however in a writen story the pace is in the hand of the reader as they can read it as fast or slow as they want, as such the flaws of the story are more apparent to the reader then the watcher.

that's why there's some narative devices that work only on movies or only on books.

For example the book "a Game of Thrones" had a multiple viewpoint structure, however when it came time to adapt the book into a TV-series it was desided that the multiple viewpoint structure wouldn't work for TV so season 1 of the series Game of Thrones has a single viewpoint more or less.

Simon_Jester wrote:

Chris Parr wrote:Or I could write really cheesy fiction with a wanked out main character, lots of explosions, speeder chases, blaster fights, fancy lightsaber duels, etc. You may love the concept, or you may hate it, but you will never forget it.

Actually, the odds are good that we would forget it almost instantly. As Purple notes, the reason you remember the crazy exploding action stuff from summer blockbuster movies is visual special effects. You as a writer cannot duplicate this. You can't make your reader visualize anything more impressive than your own ability to describe what's happening.

And you will NEVER be able to capture pure spectacle as well as a movie can... because by nature, in the time it takes to read the description of a spectacular instant in time, the reader's "ohmigod" reaction to that spectacle has passed.

Look at just how forgettable nearly anything from KJA or the Stackpole X-wing novels were. Because they did almost exactly this.

And as for summer blockbusters, how likely are you to remember those in ten years? By then there will be something new that everyone won't stop talking about.

Adamskywalker007 wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:

Chris Parr wrote:Or I could write really cheesy fiction with a wanked out main character, lots of explosions, speeder chases, blaster fights, fancy lightsaber duels, etc. You may love the concept, or you may hate it, but you will never forget it.

Actually, the odds are good that we would forget it almost instantly. As Purple notes, the reason you remember the crazy exploding action stuff from summer blockbuster movies is visual special effects. You as a writer cannot duplicate this. You can't make your reader visualize anything more impressive than your own ability to describe what's happening.

And you will NEVER be able to capture pure spectacle as well as a movie can... because by nature, in the time it takes to read the description of a spectacular instant in time, the reader's "ohmigod" reaction to that spectacle has passed.

Look at just how forgettable nearly anything from KJA or the Stackpole X-wing novels were. Because they did almost exactly this.

And as for summer blockbusters, how likely are you to remember those in ten years? By then there will be something new that everyone won't stop talking about.

I'd say that what seperates a good Summer Blockbuster from a another generic action film Summer Blockbuster is that it'll live on, ANH came out in 1977 and we still talk about it even though the film is older then I am by a large large margin.

Okay, I've conmsidered what all of you have said about over the top action sequences and "Gary Stu" and all around cheesiness taking the fun out of a story, and you know what? You're wrong.

You see, the problem is you take this way too seriously. A story with these elements can work if it's done as a spoof or parody, like Adam West's performance on the old "Batman" TV series. Now there was a blatant Gary Stu if there ever was one, but Bat Fans can't get enough of him! Why? Because he didn't take himself or the character too seriously.

So again, Gary Stu is a fun character as long as you don't take him or his world too seriously. Gary Stu works, not as an action hero leading man, but as a spoof of one.

You never portrayed this idea as a spoof, and there are ridiculously many stories which present their super-lethal characters as anything but a spoof.

He probably just now came to the idea and wants to see if he can revitalize the whole deal under this new condition. Not a bad idea honestly.

Simply changing it to be a spoof doesn't mitigate any of the concerns that have already been posted. Spoof is an issue of tone, and takes an entirely different kind of talent that is not separate from the difficulties in tone and the inherent nature of the medium that Purple and Simon already talked about.

You STILL have those problems, all you have now done is add the ADDITIONAL problem on top of that of making it funny. That takes a lot more craft and subtlety than just writing a sincere action scene.

Comedy is hard and spoof comedy is even harder, with a spoof you're balancing on razor's edge when it comes to the tone, tilt too much on one way and it'll seem like you're just bashing the work you don't like, tilt too much the other way and you're just playing it straight only poorly

I suppose it all depends on one's point of view. What's funny and what's not, that is.

For example, take the Star Wars works of Karen Traviss—she wanked the Mandalorians to the point of absurdity, making them and especially Boba Fett such a huge joke that I couldn't help laughing. I mean, a million Clone Troopers to fight a Galaxy wide war? Come on!

So the joke isn't necessarily just poking fun at a character type or situation, but in the exaggeration of those things to the point of absurdity. At least that's my point of view.

Chris Parr wrote:I suppose it all depends on one's point of view. What's funny and what's not, that is.

For example, take the Star Wars works of Karen Traviss—she wanked the Mandalorians to the point of absurdity, making them and especially Boba Fett such a huge joke that I couldn't help laughing. I mean, a million Clone Troopers to fight a Galaxy wide war? Come on!

So the joke isn't necessarily just poking fun at a character type or situation, but in the exaggeration of those things to the point of absurdity. At least that's my point of view.

it's a matter of tone more then a point of view really take that example you made for example Karen Traviss played all her mando wank as straight as an arrow (granted she's not to blame for the 3 million clones number) that's why it's absurd and silly, but as comedy or a spoof it wouldn't work as it's played way too straight it's silly cause you're suppose to take seriously not because it's silly in and off itself, you're laughing at the joke but rather the notion that you're suppose to take the "joke" seriously.

That's not something you can build a good story on intentionally.

lets look at double entendre for example, just shoehorning a "naughty word" or making a phrase that can really be interpeted is just one way that's "naughty" that's not really funny if you're over 12 or so. However if you craft a line that can be read both innocently or with a "naughty" meaning that can be funny if done well enough or like my mother put it "I don't mind double entendre but I dislike single entendre" or words to that effect (since obviously we weren't discussing this in english as neither of us are native speakers of english).

Same basic princible applies to taking something "up to eleven", it isn't really funny in and of itself, it can funny for few times if it's used in a work that is suppose to taken seriously, however the more times you read it the less funny and more annoying it becomes and the last thing you want from a joke is for it to become annoying. Also if you use taking something up to 11 as something that's suppose to funny in and of itself in work not meant to taken seriously it will fail, as comedies are suppose to absurd and not taken too seriously so the very thing that makes absurity funny in serious works is missing in intentional comedies.

It's all about tone and execution, that's why I talked about the Razor's edge. While there's a subjective element to humor, if you want to make something that has broad and lasting appeal, you'll have to be very careful with your tone and execution, lean too seriously on the "take this seriously side" and you'll end up with failed drama, lean too much into absurdity and you end up with a chaotic mess that's not funny either.

there's a very good reason both professional writers and actors say that comedy is one the hardest things to do right.

Well, Adam West played "Batman" with a mock serious deadpan tone, and William Katt played "The Greatest American Hero" the same way, and both of those shows are remembered as comedies despite the fact that neither of them ever had a laugh track.

So I think "The Legend of Gary Stuart" can work as a mock serious deadpan comedy. Or as Adam West said, "The comedy of the absurd" It's tricky, but I really think it can be done.

Television shows can do deadpan comedy because they are a visual medium. I don't think you can get away with the same sort of humor without it being flatter then Paris Hilton pre-bewb job.

Trying to go with parody of Star Wars tropes might work but thats been done to death. Trying to do some overwanked Gary Stu parody story shoved in the Star Wars universe I'd say probably would work because its already happened for serious. Hard to do a parody of that trope when the serious shit is fo shizzle more ridiculous already then most any parody. When you have a galaxy of such characters that may or may not be Garys or Marys but are at the very least wanked as all fuck like Kyp Durron, Galen Marek, Bob A Feet, the Mandawhorians, the null-Arc or whatever the fuck clones that Karen Traviss jizzed all over, and probably more that I'm quite thankfully forgetting, parody doesn't work.

They're already a fucking parody. A very, very terrible one.

If you want to do a Mary Stu parody I'd say create your own universe that cribs from others universes so its recognizable without being too close to any universe. Or you could grab some known Marty Sues and jam them into a universe together and watch the chaos unfold as their Sue fields clash. Or do the same but put them in a universe where their Sue powers no longer work and show them stumbling aboot as they can't get shit done. Have characters like Wesley Crusher, the Twilight pale emo kids, other characters from young adult-ish novels or movies like Hunger Games, Maze Runner, 50 Shades of Gray, Hairy Potthead, Artemis Fowl, and more.

Yeah, okay I can see that.

You can sort of do Deadpan comedic character in writen media but it's alot harder as you have be able to convey the contrast between the situation and the character that creates the humor with the text and that's not easy.

but again it's boils down to the overall tone of the peice, for example the 1960s Batman kept this campy and silly tone thru out even if the actors performance was deadpan.

Douglas Adams is a pretty decent example of deadpan writing. He presents all his absurd shit with complete seriousness; he doesn't quite wink at you like Pratchett did. (god I hate that I have to write past tense regarding Pratchett... anyway)

So if you want to look at that, check out some Adams. Hitchhiker's Guide in particular.

You DO know Adams has been dead far longer than Pterry, right?

Yeah, I don't know. It seems more 'okay' to write about Adams' stuff in present tense than it currently does Pratchett. Just a subjective emotional judgment...