Mission To Mars (not really...)

Mr. Saylo wrote:

It is all a matter of a "willing suspension of disbelief" theater and
fil=
m=20
require it to a large degree. There are many things unbelievable about
th=
e=20
experience in a darkened theater - you have to be willing to step beyond
=
them=20
to allow the play or movie to affect you. What amazes me is here we are
o=
n a=20
list devoted to playing games with little toy soldiers and ships - yet
we=
=20
can't accept fthe filmic nature of a movie which deals with the same
subj=
ect.

====> 
There is a difference. In one case, there is (I think) little pretense
of
setting a true scene. We accept from the outset that a board with some
toys
is not trying to convey verisimilitude and we don't necessarily suspend
disbelief, we just play a game. Or we realize all the work will go on in
our
imagination, as far as making it visual and real. Whereas with a movie,
the
nature of the visual media conveys the message that the Director and his
cast will attempt to take us to this place (wherever), and make it seem
real. The actors will try to convey a reality to the characters, even
though
we know them but shortly. The set will be such that it suits the nature
of
the movie. 

I don't think FT has pretensions of convincing you of its reality. Many
movies do.
=====

How can one have ANY belief in a space game system that depicts
combat=20
between more than three ships occupying points in three dimensions in a
T=
WO=20
dimensional format - it is ridiculously inaccurate! QUIT PLAYING
IMMEDIAT=
ELY!=20
How can we accept a game depicting combat in the future which depicts
suc=
h=20
unbelievable aspects as "anti-gravity" when it does not exist in
reality?=
=20
Working hovertanks? It is laughable, LAUGHABLE I TELL YOU! Orbital
Artill=
ery=20
strikes - name one that has happened in real life - Ha! Knew you could
no=
t!

====>
Tunguska, early 20th century. And it was one heck of a strike. 
====

Now in that framework, we have to listen to people paste a movie
about=20
unbelievability? Look past the inaccuracy - it is a convention. Look
past=
 the=20
filmic use of a device or weapon that is patently WRONG - they could not
=
find=20
one that was patently RIGHT. There is still good experience to be had in
=
the=20
filmic or theatric presentation of a story about PEOPLE. As a world
cultu=
re=20
we have realized that since people gathered round the fire to describe
a=20
successful hunt by dancing and singing. To deny the power of the
dramatic=
=20
story to describe the human condition is ludicrous at best.

=====>
Of course, to pronounce what others should or should not like is rather
ludicrous. <*wink*>

Seriously, it seems to me that if I want to see a story about people,
and
the director and the advertisments lead me to believe that is what I'm
getting, then that is what I'll evaluate it on. If the adds seem to
glory in
CGI, in effects, in mood and setting created by visuals, and if there
appears to be a "reality" basis (ie they want to portray something not
so
far divorced from what we know that we might bite and believe it could
be),
then if they come up short in those areas, they haven't delivered what I
thought they promised. They choose how to advertise their movie. They
choose
where to spend their budget (CGI or quality of script and cast). If all
stories were about was people, we'd say "to heck with nice visuals" and
we'd
just go to live theatre. In truth, film is partly about people (stories
are
hard to imagine without them), but it is partly about the visual art and
the
construction of worlds of artifice. And if, as I suggest, they try to
construct an almost real one, then they can expect some of us to object
to
where it has weaknesses. 

When I go to a movie (Myself Only Included), I seek something
interesting -
an interesting story, a fascinating perspective, something shocking or
entertaining. I don't seek to be educated about the complexities of
human
relationships - life is full of that enough, thanks. I want to be
entertained and by that I mean I want (in sci fi) to be shown believable
characters (with some depth) in a constructed world (also with not too
many
major flaws... and the further you step from today, the more liberty I
give
you) doing something interesting and well thought out. If it seems the
well
thought out part is missing, I'm disappointed. 

Thomas Barclay
Software UberMensch
xwave solutions
(613) 831-2018 x 3008