17th June 2005, 6:41 PM
Well actually the thing is, that lava is about 4000 degrees due to their color. 4000 degree lava, taking up HALF their range of vision, means that the air is ALSO 4000 degrees. Touching it isn't even needed. Now, yes maybe things work different in Star Wars, but there's one flaw. Anakin caught fire the second he was delimbed and was pretty badly burned without even having to touch the lava. This suggests that yes, it really WAS that hot around him. Since his back was as badly burned as his front, it also could not be blamed on something like the ground alone being hot enough. What I can gather is that they can resist that extreme heat, as extreme as it was, to a point, but if they lose concentration, it's all over. However, that wouldn't just set him on fire. It would reduce him to cinders in a matter of INSTANT. :D Perhaps you just don't realize just how extreme a situation Lucas put on here when he created "level 8, lava world", but it really is that hot. Perhaps there is some property of those lightsabers that makes them unblockable by force powers though... I suppose that maybe they have special vibrations synched with those power crystals or whatever that manage to destabalize any force protection the jedis could have.
Once again, I feel I must point out exactly what I'm after here. When I say that certain things should be realistic, I'm not saying "that's not how it works, monkeys can't fly!". I'm saying that there are just certain things that really help things seem a lot more natural, even in the context of the laws of that universe. Let's take it to a different level. Why even bother with CG or better special effects at all? It's all about taking away things that remind people they are watching a movie. Now, I can enjoy old movies despite grossly obvious costumes or something of the sort, but it is always going to be DESPITE those things. I'll never actually enjoy them BECAUSE of it, excepting comedy, which is why everyone loves the Muppets. As an example, in the past, wires moving martial artists were very apparent and the physics of their movements just seemed "off". Currently, with better special effects, the wires are not only very thin to start with, but any appearences of them in the finished film can be digitally removed. More than that, the makers of these movies have an artistic but also scientific sense about what looks "right" and what will just end up looking "wrong". Remember, what looks right and wrong to us in the sense of physics is determined by what we notice in everyday experience. So, nowadays the movements of the magically jumping martial artists looks a lot smoother and somehow more natural than in the past. Some of the movies might suck worse in the story department, and therefor be worse, but the attention to detail will always be seen as a good thing, not a bad thing.
This is what I'm talking about here. When a CG Yoda is made, they pay special attention to the lighting to make sure one side is lit up, one is in shadow, and that everything that should cast a shadow DOES in fact cast a shadow. Now, he could be lit up on all sides evenly and be poorly textured, or even just use naked polygons with green shading, and hey as a movie watcher I could accept that that's just the way he looks or explain that this is another universe with different physics, but in the end, I think we will all agree that that attention to detail was a good thing that allowed us to better get into the movie.
Now on this jumping issue, I will simply say that I acknowledge that you can easily come up with retcon to explain exactly how it works. You've already offerend one possible explanation of constant reboosts in mid jump to maintain speed coupled with constant slowing bursts on the way down to prevent acceleration. Both would actually make tactical sense in fact. However, in the end that shouldn't have been needed. In fact, I'm not going to use such explanations. In the end, I'll simply conclude that the "reality" of the scene did involve all the right things, but it was this movie's expression of it that got it wrong.
Surely if Lucas HAD actually taken the physics of thrown and falling objects into account, Star Wars fans would see that as an example of Lucas' attention to detail and applaude it though. This much you must admit would be true.
And note that I really take no issue with any of the additional or altered nature of reality when it's needed. However, I must note that sometimes obeying the laws of physics might actually provide for a great scene that disobeying it leaves just mediocre... To that end, note when that space ship fell into the planet's atmoshere? Now it should have been that when the ship fell, unimpeded by the air for some time, two things should have occured. Firstly, if the gravity generators (another needed invention) were still intact, they should not have slid around but rather stayed on the floor of the ship, looking up to see the ground above them. That itself would corrospond with the physics of that world, which were broken when they started sliding about. So, we must assume, as is indicated anyway I believe, that the gravity generator was somehow disabled. Now if they are in orbit, this means floating, But, it ALSO means they would be floating even if they are falling towards the planet. Only if something slows down the ship itself but not the people inside it, like I suppose an atmosphere could do (though they are still outside of it at this point and aren't really slowed down enough by the atmosphere to account for falling to that degree), should they actually be sliding towards the planet faster than the ship. The opportunity they missed, I'm saying, is a zero-g situation the jedis would have to deal with. That would have been so cool! Imagine if some of those robotic duel sided cattleprod weilders were actually still on board the ship in other places and they actually had to battle them in zero g. I'm sure you can see how that could be a cool battle with jedis and robots bouncing around all sorts of surfaces and clashing for a moment in midair before continuing and moving to another wall. It's not a deal breaker or anything, but really they missed a golden opportunity for a cool fight scene they haven't done yet in the movies. PLUS, with no gravity to hinder them, there can be no "high ground", so the jedis could never encounter their greatest weakness! :D
Again, I'm not saying that they have to make everything obey real world physics. That's boring and crippling. But, there is something to be said for not only inventing new physics but maintaining a certain touch stone with us. For example, any good story has humans in it somewhere. They can add other creatures, but if at any point they try to make it clear that they think in ways totally different from humans, they can only rightly make that clear by actually ADDING humans to the story so you can see, by the writer's expression, and by direct comparison, where this difference is. It just doesn't work if you invent dog creatures on a world without any humans at all and point out in a narrative that "oh, they take pride much more seriuosly than any human". Without a human nearby to really make it clear that they are that different, there's no way to properly judge that they are anything more than a dog version of human societies that love pride. Since a writer tends to exxagerate the human condition for effect anyway, how do you tell that this isn't just an artistic interpretatino of human behavior but actually totally different from human behavior, without a token human in there as a touch stone? JRR Tolkein was of the belief that one simply couldn't. Sure he had vast stories about the life and times of the elven folks without a human in site, but he knew, as his forward stated, that if he was going to make it clear that elves see the world in a totally different light than humans, that he needed to add humans at some point to show how he the artist views humanity.
I guess that last line sums it up. Since in the end the behavior of the people in a story reflects the author's views of how people act, to come up with people that act totally different than how humans act, you must provide an example of how you think humans act to relate to. And, I've come to pretty much be convinced of that. If I see something like The Lion King, they don't really make any claims that any of the animals are anything more than creatures who act exactly like humans. Had they made the claim that lions are completely different than humans, they would need to add one somewhere, perhaps shooting Simba's mother or something, so you could get some glimpse of how the author sees humans.
So, in Lord of the Rings, the story is about hobbits, but Tolkein adds humans because he knows he made a lot of points about how hobbits are a lot different than humans, so he needs to put them in there to really get the reader to understand how different they are. When I read "the hobbit", I never got how Bilbo was that different from an adventurous human. I could see how he was different than dwarves for sure, but not humans. That didn't happen until I read Lord of the Rings. Then the idea of just how different hobbits really are from Tolkein's view of humans rang loud and clear.
Sorry for that long bit, but I was leading to something. This sort of making sure people have a touchstone to somehow relate to what they are watching is not limited to merely the characters, but the setting as well. In that sense, additional laws of physics can't stand entirely on their own. Lucas knew that well enough in that he never attempted to make this world stand in an entirely and totally fabricated manner, like some "Q continuum". Some of it had to be something we could relate to in everyday life, for example the existance of light, how it reflects and so on. Gravity and so forth also had to behave in at least a superficially similar manner. After all, if ALL the physics are totally different, what makes the Force so amazing relative to all that? It's hard to really get us to believe The Force is so amazing when everything else is also pretty frickin' amazing and weird. Where is the touchstone? To that end, most of the time Lucas got it right enough. However, that extra mile, an added attention to detail, really would have made it more clear. What I'm getting at is that something as simple as realistic jumping physics, after that initial burst of force, would really drive home how amazing the force is in this universe, at least at a barely liminal level.
All that said, I really went overboard to make my point clear, because in the end, no, little things like that, or the water coming out of those hoses putting out the fires on the incoming ship not being blown back by the wind, don't kill a good movie. Star Wars is able to stand on it's own without having to depend on a crutch like "but hey we are realistic". All I'm saying is the extra mile to make it realistic in certain areas like that can only help.
And again, in Zelda there is a LOT that defies our world, of course. However, they keep certain things normal so we have some idea of what the hell is going on. For example, Link is pretty much human (aside from those ears) and thus has human limitations. If everyone was a superpowered freak, then for what purpose would I be gathering a tool kit? No, it was the fact that he was realistically limited that made gathering all those tools with pretty obvious utility such a joy.
Once again, I feel I must point out exactly what I'm after here. When I say that certain things should be realistic, I'm not saying "that's not how it works, monkeys can't fly!". I'm saying that there are just certain things that really help things seem a lot more natural, even in the context of the laws of that universe. Let's take it to a different level. Why even bother with CG or better special effects at all? It's all about taking away things that remind people they are watching a movie. Now, I can enjoy old movies despite grossly obvious costumes or something of the sort, but it is always going to be DESPITE those things. I'll never actually enjoy them BECAUSE of it, excepting comedy, which is why everyone loves the Muppets. As an example, in the past, wires moving martial artists were very apparent and the physics of their movements just seemed "off". Currently, with better special effects, the wires are not only very thin to start with, but any appearences of them in the finished film can be digitally removed. More than that, the makers of these movies have an artistic but also scientific sense about what looks "right" and what will just end up looking "wrong". Remember, what looks right and wrong to us in the sense of physics is determined by what we notice in everyday experience. So, nowadays the movements of the magically jumping martial artists looks a lot smoother and somehow more natural than in the past. Some of the movies might suck worse in the story department, and therefor be worse, but the attention to detail will always be seen as a good thing, not a bad thing.
This is what I'm talking about here. When a CG Yoda is made, they pay special attention to the lighting to make sure one side is lit up, one is in shadow, and that everything that should cast a shadow DOES in fact cast a shadow. Now, he could be lit up on all sides evenly and be poorly textured, or even just use naked polygons with green shading, and hey as a movie watcher I could accept that that's just the way he looks or explain that this is another universe with different physics, but in the end, I think we will all agree that that attention to detail was a good thing that allowed us to better get into the movie.
Now on this jumping issue, I will simply say that I acknowledge that you can easily come up with retcon to explain exactly how it works. You've already offerend one possible explanation of constant reboosts in mid jump to maintain speed coupled with constant slowing bursts on the way down to prevent acceleration. Both would actually make tactical sense in fact. However, in the end that shouldn't have been needed. In fact, I'm not going to use such explanations. In the end, I'll simply conclude that the "reality" of the scene did involve all the right things, but it was this movie's expression of it that got it wrong.
Surely if Lucas HAD actually taken the physics of thrown and falling objects into account, Star Wars fans would see that as an example of Lucas' attention to detail and applaude it though. This much you must admit would be true.
And note that I really take no issue with any of the additional or altered nature of reality when it's needed. However, I must note that sometimes obeying the laws of physics might actually provide for a great scene that disobeying it leaves just mediocre... To that end, note when that space ship fell into the planet's atmoshere? Now it should have been that when the ship fell, unimpeded by the air for some time, two things should have occured. Firstly, if the gravity generators (another needed invention) were still intact, they should not have slid around but rather stayed on the floor of the ship, looking up to see the ground above them. That itself would corrospond with the physics of that world, which were broken when they started sliding about. So, we must assume, as is indicated anyway I believe, that the gravity generator was somehow disabled. Now if they are in orbit, this means floating, But, it ALSO means they would be floating even if they are falling towards the planet. Only if something slows down the ship itself but not the people inside it, like I suppose an atmosphere could do (though they are still outside of it at this point and aren't really slowed down enough by the atmosphere to account for falling to that degree), should they actually be sliding towards the planet faster than the ship. The opportunity they missed, I'm saying, is a zero-g situation the jedis would have to deal with. That would have been so cool! Imagine if some of those robotic duel sided cattleprod weilders were actually still on board the ship in other places and they actually had to battle them in zero g. I'm sure you can see how that could be a cool battle with jedis and robots bouncing around all sorts of surfaces and clashing for a moment in midair before continuing and moving to another wall. It's not a deal breaker or anything, but really they missed a golden opportunity for a cool fight scene they haven't done yet in the movies. PLUS, with no gravity to hinder them, there can be no "high ground", so the jedis could never encounter their greatest weakness! :D
Again, I'm not saying that they have to make everything obey real world physics. That's boring and crippling. But, there is something to be said for not only inventing new physics but maintaining a certain touch stone with us. For example, any good story has humans in it somewhere. They can add other creatures, but if at any point they try to make it clear that they think in ways totally different from humans, they can only rightly make that clear by actually ADDING humans to the story so you can see, by the writer's expression, and by direct comparison, where this difference is. It just doesn't work if you invent dog creatures on a world without any humans at all and point out in a narrative that "oh, they take pride much more seriuosly than any human". Without a human nearby to really make it clear that they are that different, there's no way to properly judge that they are anything more than a dog version of human societies that love pride. Since a writer tends to exxagerate the human condition for effect anyway, how do you tell that this isn't just an artistic interpretatino of human behavior but actually totally different from human behavior, without a token human in there as a touch stone? JRR Tolkein was of the belief that one simply couldn't. Sure he had vast stories about the life and times of the elven folks without a human in site, but he knew, as his forward stated, that if he was going to make it clear that elves see the world in a totally different light than humans, that he needed to add humans at some point to show how he the artist views humanity.
I guess that last line sums it up. Since in the end the behavior of the people in a story reflects the author's views of how people act, to come up with people that act totally different than how humans act, you must provide an example of how you think humans act to relate to. And, I've come to pretty much be convinced of that. If I see something like The Lion King, they don't really make any claims that any of the animals are anything more than creatures who act exactly like humans. Had they made the claim that lions are completely different than humans, they would need to add one somewhere, perhaps shooting Simba's mother or something, so you could get some glimpse of how the author sees humans.
So, in Lord of the Rings, the story is about hobbits, but Tolkein adds humans because he knows he made a lot of points about how hobbits are a lot different than humans, so he needs to put them in there to really get the reader to understand how different they are. When I read "the hobbit", I never got how Bilbo was that different from an adventurous human. I could see how he was different than dwarves for sure, but not humans. That didn't happen until I read Lord of the Rings. Then the idea of just how different hobbits really are from Tolkein's view of humans rang loud and clear.
Sorry for that long bit, but I was leading to something. This sort of making sure people have a touchstone to somehow relate to what they are watching is not limited to merely the characters, but the setting as well. In that sense, additional laws of physics can't stand entirely on their own. Lucas knew that well enough in that he never attempted to make this world stand in an entirely and totally fabricated manner, like some "Q continuum". Some of it had to be something we could relate to in everyday life, for example the existance of light, how it reflects and so on. Gravity and so forth also had to behave in at least a superficially similar manner. After all, if ALL the physics are totally different, what makes the Force so amazing relative to all that? It's hard to really get us to believe The Force is so amazing when everything else is also pretty frickin' amazing and weird. Where is the touchstone? To that end, most of the time Lucas got it right enough. However, that extra mile, an added attention to detail, really would have made it more clear. What I'm getting at is that something as simple as realistic jumping physics, after that initial burst of force, would really drive home how amazing the force is in this universe, at least at a barely liminal level.
All that said, I really went overboard to make my point clear, because in the end, no, little things like that, or the water coming out of those hoses putting out the fires on the incoming ship not being blown back by the wind, don't kill a good movie. Star Wars is able to stand on it's own without having to depend on a crutch like "but hey we are realistic". All I'm saying is the extra mile to make it realistic in certain areas like that can only help.
And again, in Zelda there is a LOT that defies our world, of course. However, they keep certain things normal so we have some idea of what the hell is going on. For example, Link is pretty much human (aside from those ears) and thus has human limitations. If everyone was a superpowered freak, then for what purpose would I be gathering a tool kit? No, it was the fact that he was realistically limited that made gathering all those tools with pretty obvious utility such a joy.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)