The Song Fight Bulletin Board

WeaselSlayer wrote:I mean, a robot with lungs!?

I saw no robot with lungs: Either I wasn't paying attention or you weren't paying attention.

Lacked realism? Come on, people it's science-fiction - if it lacked internal logic, that's a whole different kettle of fish, but complaining about lack of realism is like moaning that buildings can't dance ...

j$

science fiction demands more realism than many genres.
actually , let me rephrase that: PLAUSIBILITY.
things have to make sense, within their own universe.

however, the stuff i was complaining about is people stuff, not science fiction stuff. this has nothing to do with science fiction at all... pay attention, people! if characters look like people, act like people, ARE people, but then do things that completely don't make sense at all, there's a problem. it's the kind of thing that should get fixed in script editing.
-bill

j$ wrote:Lacked realism? Come on, people it's science-fiction - if it lacked internal logic, that's a whole different kettle of fish, but complaining about lack of realism is like moaning that buildings can't dance ...

j$

word, yo. if you want realism, you should stick to documentaries.

fodroy wrote:

j$ wrote:Lacked realism? Come on, people it's science-fiction - if it lacked internal logic, that's a whole different kettle of fish, but complaining about lack of realism is like moaning that buildings can't dance ...

word, yo. if you want realism, you should stick to documentaries.

Maybe. Maybe not.

j$ wrote:Lacked realism? Come on, people it's science-fiction - if it lacked internal logic, that's a whole different kettle of fish, but complaining about lack of realism is like moaning that buildings can't dance ...

j$

Methinks it's more fantasy than science fiction. From what I understand, science fiction genreally focuses on a yet-unachievable science. This is just space ships and laser swords.

Still, a movie, whether the adventure-portion is true to science or not, should make the characters believable within those situations, no?

Still again, a fun series if you ignore some things.

Puce wrote:

fodroy wrote:

j$ wrote:Lacked realism? Come on, people it's science-fiction - if it lacked internal logic, that's a whole different kettle of fish, but complaining about lack of realism is like moaning that buildings can't dance ...

word, yo. if you want realism, you should stick to documentaries.

Maybe. Maybe not.

haha. yeah. i forgot about michael moore. but then some would say that he doesn't make documentaries.

Dan Wrekenhaus 2 wrote: Still, a movie, whether the adventure-portion is true to science or not, should make the characters believable within those situations, no?

Yes, thank you, that was the point I was trying to make.
-bill

Puce wrote:

WeaselSlayer wrote:I mean, a robot with lungs!?

I saw no robot with lungs: Either I wasn't paying attention or you weren't paying attention.

General Grevious. He had lungs, a heart and 'real' eyes.

He was some guy, and was put into the body of a droid under the instruction of Darth Sidious. I think it is a subtle hint at The Emperor either
1. Knowing he was going to have to robotisize Anikin
2. Having a want for some semi-Jedi robot man.

sausage boy wrote:

Puce wrote:

WeaselSlayer wrote:I mean, a robot with lungs!?

I saw no robot with lungs: Either I wasn't paying attention or you weren't paying attention.

General Grevious. He had lungs

Yes he did. But he ain't no robot.

Grevious was easily the most realistic character in this film in every way, including visually. He was fucking 3D and he was still more believable than Anakin.

I saw this again with my two youngest siblings and I enjoyed it for a second time. Some of the magic was gone, and I made sure I left during the talky part in the middle, but the ending was still rousing.

Puce wrote: Yes he did. But he ain't no robot.

True.

To the casual movie goer though, he is a robot.

Well excuse me all to hell. Cyborg? Asthmatic droid? Whatever, just another fucker in a cape with lightsabers to me.

j$ wrote: - if it lacked internal logic, that's a whole different kettle of fish...

Dan Wrekenhaus 2 wrote:Still, a movie, whether the adventure-portion is true to science or not, should make the characters believable within those situations, no?.

Yes, that's what I said. What do you think internal logic means?

Believability <> realism, was my point.

Also it is fiction using science as its base, and therefore science-fiction. It is fantasy as well, of course, but that is also covered by the 'fiction' part.