Ghostbusters: Scifi or Fantasy? by DMI

OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

Ghostbusters: Scifi or Fantasy?

scan this with your smart phone to obtain URL for this page

POSTED BY: DMI
UPDATED: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:14
SHORT URL: http://goo.gl/td0Fk
VIEWED: 11692
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, March 8, 2011 3:25 PM

Expired, forgotten, spoiled rotten.

My wife and I had this discussion over dinner. She claims Ghostbusters is fantasy because it deals with the paranormal and that which science cannot explain. I claimed that Ghostbusters was Scifi because, though it deals with the paranormal, they are all scientists (okay, two of them are scientists) and must be using the scientific method to in some quantify and define the "other realm" in order to interact with it in a predictable way through technology(ex: point proton pack at ghost = hold ghost in place).

So, who's right, Browncoats? Help us out here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 8, 2011 4:00 PM

BYTEMITE

Technically stuff dealing with the paranormal is considered part of the supernatural genre, not fantasy. Fantasy tends to be fictional iron age settings on this world or imaginary worlds, with magic or extraordinary creatures, but it can also deal with the surreal (Alice in Wonderland).

As for Ghostbusters, I'd call it Sci-Fi before supernatural for the reasons you said.

Horror and Comedy would also be acceptable, even though there really isn't that much scary in it, some people still classify it as such.

(Erg, sorry for the multiple responses, I had both beta and original open and accidentally kept posting to original)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 8, 2011 5:12 PM

DREAMTROVE

The SFWA crowd has a pretty fine line definition which might come in handy here: What elements does the story hinge on?

Here, the story hinges on the supernatural Ghosts, demons, gods. It's comical in part because of the jarring setting switch. A switch to comtemporary is often done for budget, but by not making our characters mystics, we have more humor potential. That said, the switch doesn't hinge the plot.

If you remove the science from the story, and replace it with magic, the story remains basically in tact. You end up with a bunch of rogue mystics that you can call for ghostbusting, rather than a geeky trio ala Buffy.

However, try removing the supernatural element from this movie, and replacing it with a science fiction one, like aliens. You have a completely different movie.

Ergo, it's fantasy.

If you were to stick in supernatural creatures dressed up as aliens, it still wouldn't work, because such aliens would be a supernatural element still, and not a science fiction one.

It's often been argued by writers that Star Wars is fantasy and not science fiction under this premise. That's a more extreme conclusion, but it still works, for the most part: Darth Vader is an evil King in a traveling death star castle. He destroys villages, and a young knight, trained by a typical yoshi, must battle him in a sword fight to restore peace to the kingdom, with the aid of a magical force.

The science fiction elements in star wars are few and far between, but there are a couple: The millenium falcon is actually a spaceship, and not just a fantasy element dressed up as sci-fi (the force and light sabers definitely are fantasy tropes dressed up as sci-fi) The other one that comes to mind right away is the droids. Sure, fantasy has Golems, and you might be able to call C3PO the tin woodman, fair enough, but R2 is not Toto. R2D2 interfaces with computer systems to control things remotely. If this were fantasy he'd have to be replaced with a dog-familiar with spell casting ability, which would be a radical change. However, it wouldn't alter the storyline.

But Star Wars is probably the one epic which is sitting right on the dividing line.

Ghostbusters is solidly in the supernatural category. There's just no way to science the ghosts into true sci-fi aliens without radically altering the story.

I think. The ghosts do lack that fundemental connection to the past that ghosts are supposed to have. It's not a story that belongs in a category with "The Others" but I would still call it fantasy.

Another measure is often whether or not the sci fi element has its basis in science, as in, it represents a scientific or future development that is a natural or logical possible outgrowth of a current or previous set of circumstances.

The core question that defines Science Fiction is "What if?"

The core question that defines a ghost story is "What Happened?"

These are pretty much as solid as the Mystery standy "Who Dunnit?"

The Sci-Fi What if? is a logical social or scientific step, never a magical leap, because if it's a magical leap, then it's fantasy. Ergo, "What if there were gods?" is not SF. If you take the science element of this story, the proton pack as a development, it's neither a major story hinge, nor does it naturally lead to the story we have, and there's no way to logically get to it from here. The what if is really What if you had Zuul in your icebox, which makes it fantasy again.

Back to the Future is a good sci-fi what if. What if you built a time machine in a Delorean? This is a moving with no aliens, future events, or even really any science outside the one idea, but it's still solidly sci-fi. If you remove the science fiction element of a time machine, you have no story.

So, the Science Fiction Writers of America agree with your wife. You might be able to get some mileage out of graciously admitting defeat.

ps. Scientists appear in lots of stories that aren't sci-fi. Another hotly debated on the line story is Frankenstein. I think that the what if *is* the science element, even though it could be replaced with magic, it was based on science of the time, I'd side with sci-fi for Frankenstein.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 4:45 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I have always considered Ghostbusters to be Sci-Fi, because they explore their subject matter and engage their antagonists with technology.

I do believe the difference between sci-fi and Fantasy is all about the trappings of the story.

Unlike Dreamtrove, I think the story is the same whether you consider the ghosts and demons to be supernatural entities or extra-dimensional beings.

Like Dreamtrove, I think the story is the same whether you leave the heroes as-is, or redesign them as rogue mystics.

In fact, I think every Fantasy story ever written would be substantively the same if the Fantasy trappings were replaced with Technology, and vice-versa. Tons of sci-fi is, in fact, a reworking of a fantasy story told in a technological context.

That having been said, it seems clear to me that the trappings define the genre.

So the question becomes... what are the trappings? Is it the heroes and their technology, or the ghosts and demons?

Because the story is technology driven, and the heroes never make an attempt to deal with their problems in a fantastical or spiritual way, (they never really deal with the ghosts on the ghost's terms) I lean towards Sci-Fi.

If the heroes discarded proton packs and instead did some ghost-whispering to set the lost spirits at peace, then I'd lean towards fantasy.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 6:12 AM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by DMI:
(okay, two of them are scientists)

Technically all three of the founders are scientists (Peter may not be a very good scientist, but he does have his doctorate).

I'd class it more as a supernatural comedy, albeit one with not entirely unreasonable (pseudo-)science behind it. I'd recommend the DVD commentaries; there's a discussion of what Ramis calls "the domino theory of belief" that explains the approach (start with something completely true, then change one minor detail [untrue, yet plausible], then change another [untrue and implausible, but possible], then change another, and another, and eventually you can have a giant marshmallow stomping through midtown and the audience will still buy into it).

And I'd class Star Wars more as a "planetary romance" --a little-known and horribly underused sub-genre of fantasy. Planetary romance is a romance (in the literary sense of having a single hero, chosen by destiny and gifted with "supernatural" powers) that happens to be set on another planet (i.e., a world with a complete-yet-distinct set of rules, which is not tied to our world). Other examples include He-Man and the Masters of the Universe (set on Eternia and focused on Grayskull's Defender), The Dark Crystal (set on Thraa and focused on the last surviving Gelflings and UrSkeks), and Avatar: The Last Airbender (set on the "Avatar World" and focused on the reincarnated Avatar). The only difference with Star Wars is that it's technically an interplanetary romance (yet still focused on the Skywalker family bloodline).

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 11:15 AM

LWAVES

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
I'd class it more as a supernatural comedy, albeit one with not entirely unreasonable (pseudo-)science behind it.

I class it as a supernatural comedy as well. There just aren't enough scifi elements for me to class it as that.

And I have to disagree with Anthony about the story being technology driven. It's character driven for me, our heroes on side, Gozer and Mr Stay Puft on the other and Sigourney and Rick in the middle. The technology is just a way of dealing with the threat, it isn't the focus of the story. In the same way that Back To The Future isn't about the Delorean, that is just a means of getting Marty to and from the past. The story is about Marty and his family.

The label of Fantasy is often used to describe the world of elves, orcs and magic (LOTR and D+D etc) but really it's an over-arching term that has the sub-genres of Supernatural, Horror, SciFi, High Fantasy etc. It is hard to label anything as just Fantasy, especially when most film/shows cover more than one genre.

"The greatest invention ever is not the wheel. It's the second wheel." - Rich Hall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 12:01 PM

DREAMTROVE

Anthony,

I was mainly weighing on the SFWA take on genre divisions, where it comes from, which people can take an leave as they like.

As for Ghostbusters per se, I think that the story hinges on the supernatural, not the technology, which is actually magic dressed up as technology.

I would differ on "every Fantasy" I think many would lose a lot, because magic tends to be an unknown personal power, like the force, and cannot just be given to Han in a pinch the way a piece of technology could.

Just to clarify what I mean by "replacing":
The redressing of tropes from one genre into another is like downloading a skin that patches orc and hobbit graphics onto armies from Venice and Milan in Total War: Ie., they do not start behaving like orcs and hobbits, they only look like orcs and hobbits.

If you are to actually replace the tropes with reasonable parallels from another genre, then you will have story changes:

If you take the proton pack and replace it with some other form of exorcism, you do not majorly change the story, in fact, you could argue that the proton pack is not in fact technology, but horror genre exorcism trope dressed up as sci-fi.

However, if you remove the ghosts and replace them with aliens, not ghosts that look like aliens but behave like ghosts, you have an alien invasion story, which is not radically different either.

Where the story changes is when you replace gods with alien queens. No Zuul in the icebox, no girlfriends turning into dogs and no staypuff marshmallow man, and you have a different story.

IMHO.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 12:25 PM

DMI

Expired, forgotten, spoiled rotten.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Quote:
Originally posted by DMI:
(okay, two of them are scientists)
Technically all three of the founders are scientists (Peter may not be a very good scientist, but he does have his doctorate).

I know. I was making a joke about how bad a scientist Peter is.

I appreciate the responses and I really like the idea of asking, "what does the story hinge on?" The submission guidelines for many scifi magazines use the same premise, defining a science fiction story as one in which if you removed the scifi element, the story would collapse.

However I have to agree with Anthony that what we call ghosts doesn't necessarily have to be fantasy because they could merely be extra dimensional beings (I seem to remember Ray using that word in one of the movies, though I can't remember the context now).

IMDB lists it as an Adventure Fantasy Mystery. Personally, scifi or fantasy aside, the movie is clearly more comedy than adventure. I did find something actually useful on there though.

Quote:

In the storyboards for the film (included in a gift booklet for the Ghostbusters two disc set), the guns for the proton packs were actually wands, like magic wands. They were long sticks with a ball on the end. They fired by the Ghostbusters flicking their wrists as a magician would and pointing the wands at the ghosts. The wands were changed to laser guns to fit the idea that the Ghostbusters created their gear from practical equipment.

Sounds to me like the original concept was definitely fantasy and then they tried to move it in the direction of science fiction.

-----------------------------
I pray for one last landing,
on the globe that gave me birth.
Let me rest my eyes on the fleecy skies
and the cool, green hills of Earth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 1:35 PM

LWAVES

Quote:
Originally posted by DMI:
However I have to agree with Anthony that what we call ghosts doesn't necessarily have to be fantasy because they could merely be extra dimensional beings.

Surely ghosts, as we know them, are extra-dimensional beings and supernatural at the same time? They don't appear to exist in our dimension but can 'cross' into it, for lack of a better word, making them extra-dimensional. Either way, as supernatural ghosts or extra-dimensional ghosts, they are still fantasy.

As for Ghostbusters then I always assumed that the ghosts (library lady, the runner etc) come from the same dimension as Gozer. They increase in frequency as Gozers arrival gets closer so they have to be linked in some way. But as Gozer is corporeal it can't cross over the dimensions in the same way that ghosts can. It needs a 'doorway' to be opened.

Plus I don't see the film as an Adventure movie either, or a Mystery. IMDB has got that completely wrong. It has some elements of both but if you go that far then you may as well call it a Horror because of the ghosts.

"The greatest invention ever is not the wheel. It's the second wheel." - Rich Hall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 2:13 PM

BYTEMITE

I would like to mention, using the concept of magic is not something you can just simply hand off to a normal, or "Han," whereas technology is... That the fourth guy they hire for the ghostbusters is not a scientist or a wizard, but an average guy.

Also, that Dan Akroyd, who helped produce and write the show, is majorly into soft forms of science fiction. Such as aliens.

Also, that other series have had strong supernatural/paranormal bends but are still considered science fiction, such as X-files.

ohemgee, I am a nerd.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 2:25 PM

BYTEMITE

Well, it's suggested that some of the ghosts, such as the library lady, originally were people before they died. Saying the existing ghosts were all related to the inter-dimensional being in the first film calls into question the origin of the ghosts in the second movie, but I will put aside the second movie in favour of the first for now.

But also, it's suggested that gathering paranormal forces for a large-scale event attracts more minor paranormal activity as well. Paranormal activity in enough concentration can apparently manifest itself as a fuel for further paranormal activity.

Such as happens with the containment exploding and releasing previously captured ghosts in the first movie, and more directly manifesting as a river of psychoactive slime later used to power a walking statue of liberty in the second film.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 3:31 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

This is the plot to Star Trek XVI, The Dimensional Door:

Picard, Worf, and Data discover that extra-dimensional alien beings are invading Earth. These beings are able to enter our world from another dimension via a growing Portal.

It turns out that a powerful entity from an alternate dimension, with power similar to that of Trelane, is creating this portal.

Picard, Worf, and Data have to figure out a way to stop him, while also fighting the extra-dimensional beings who penetrate through the weakening trans-dimensional barrier.

Things get really hairy when Lieutenant Barclay and Diana Troi are possessed by the extra-dimensional beings, and used to facilitate the full opening of the trans-dimensional portal.

Fortunately, Picard, Worf, and Data are able to build special triolic energy weapons which can weaken the extra-dimensional beings, and enable them to be trapped in a special containment unit in Starfleet Headquarters.

The Federation does not believe in the extra-dimensional threat, however. They order Picard, Worf, and Data to dismantle their unauthorized containment unit. When the trio refuse, a high-ranking Admiral deactivates the unit himself, freeing countless extra-dimensional beings who have already been apprehended.

Only now realizing the mistake, the Federation President finally authorizes Picard's mission.

Picard, Worf, and Data confront the extra-dimensional bigwig as he transitions through the portal. At first, they are dismayed when the extra-dimensional Trelane-type entity shows immense power, able to use telepathy to discover their worst fears and manifest them using matter-energy conversion technology. However, our Starfleet heroes prevail when they hatch a daring plan to combine the power from their triolic energy weapons to defeat the bigwig and seal the portal once and for all. With the connection to their home dimension severed, Lieutenant Barclay and Troi's dimensional invaders fall away, freeing them from alien control.

The Federation rejoices.

The End.

If this all sounds like a stretch, most of the components to this story are freely available in canon Trek plots, a show that is typically categorized as Sci-Fi.

I want to stress that I don't consider any stories to be 'technology driven', an assertion made about my position that I consider false. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I repeatedly used the word 'trappings.' I think I can retell any Fantasy story in a Sci Fi format. Sci-Fi is just a color on the palette that some people like better because it makes a superficial connection to aspects of the verifiable world. If there is a sci-fi story that 'falls apart' without the presence of technology, then I haven't read it yet.

If the writer chooses science as his conveyance to the fictional realm, it's a Sci-Fi story. If he chooses magic or similar elements, it's Fantasy, as far as I'm concerned. Because Ghostbusters' writers chose to analyze and confront their spiritual antagonists from the position of Science, I consider it Sci-Fi. If they had stuck to wands and incantations, I'd consider it Fantasy. Trelane and Gozer and Sauron are all just different color M&M's to me.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 5:51 PM

DREAMTROVE

Byte

No point in arguing, here, but I will side with writers here, because the art of writing is largely dependent on the ability to abstract from the text what the story is about, which gives you a good heading on its future optimal direction. That's why they bothered to make rules to determine what genre your story is, or who your story is about.

Ergo, following admittedly dogmatic rules, Firefly is a show about Simon and River told by Mal and possibly Kaylee. Everyone else is in a rather supportive role. People may not like or agree with that analysis, but it's a writers perspective, and one that can be concluded using common writers tools.

I believe that the point of using these is that the art of storytelling is a skill, and not a matter of opinion. I can break the rules once I know and understand them, but it is important to do that first, and then, when I do break them, to be very sure that I am breaking them intentionally and for a good reason.

The result of this is hopefully good writing.

We were just talking about Pirates of the Caribbean, a story about Elizabeth Swan, told by either Will Turner or more likely Jack Sparrow. The writers failed to understand this, just as they failed to understand contrast, which is why the first story, lifted from On Stranger Tides and Monkey Island worked rather better than subsequent attempts.

I'm not saying that the analysis I posted is correct or more valid than opinion, but that it is the result of a critical analysis, rather than just being pure opinion, and that such critical analysis has a point, which is storytelling.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 6:06 PM

BYTEMITE

Oh man, don't even get me started on Pirates of the Carribean. While the last movie was okay and the ending was a tear-jerker, speaking entirely from a story-writing perspective Elizabeth really SHOULD have turned out to be the reincarnation of Calypso.

Anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:38 AM

DREAMTROVE

I don't think so. I toyed with that idea, but the story was too far off course by this point. The last minute swap of Jack and Will didn't make sense. There are individual scenes in the sequels that work, but overall, there's too much slapstick and not enough cinematic story construction.

Elizabeth's initial story arc is becoming a pirate. If the story continues, she's going to end up a totally depraved scoundrel who raids English ports, but in so doing, it should be to protect the world from Beckett.

The only character in the later movies who undergoes decent development is Norrington, but it's not as interesting as it good have been, it falls into some stock story changes. Everyone complained that Jack Sparrow decays, because less light/dark and more light, but Will and Elizabeth decay pretty badly, they become in parts passive, less proactive. The kinky scene where Elizabeth kisses Jack while chaining him to the ship is one of the developments that works, including everything that leads up to that.

But it's completely inconsistent. Where Jack rows away and then comes back, you're thinking "Is he running away?" that would be out of character, if only a little, it's enough to be jarring. But it falls apart when the Kraken doesn't chase him. It stays after the ship. Then you're left with "maybe he's running away to save everyone else, and then sees it doesn't work" which works, but I'm not sure this is something the writers thought of. If this is the angle, then it's consistent with his showdown with the Kraken, but it's not consistent with the chaining to the ship scene. If you take the simpler explanation of his running away as "Suddenly he's a coward, and then suddenly he feels bad about it, changes his mind and then turns around" then that's just really contrived to boost unnecessary suspense at the cost of the character, but additionally, you have the problem that it reverses the consistency: Now it's consistent with the chain scene, but not with his showdown. It's lose-lose for the writers, because they've worked in two competing views of what's going on. Either the Kraken is after Jack, or it's after the Pearl, and the writers can't make up their minds.

Okay, I'll grant that Jack may have thought "If I can get to land, all this will end, I'll be safe" which is a slightly less heroic version, but then followed by "Uh Oh, this isn't working" which makes you say "Why isn't it working?"

Writing is tricky. You have to convince the reader of the mechanisms that the story hinges on, whether the characters figure it out or not, and to do that, you have to know yourself what those hinges are. This is the Kraken. It was sent to recover a) Jack, b) the Pearl, c) the Heart. Make up your minds. As it is, I'm left thinking "This is the Kraken, it's not very bright." But if that's the case, our characters should be able to outsmart it.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2011 4:58 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
The last minute swap of Jack and Will didn't make sense.

Yeah. That was also a problem. They didn't stay true to Jack's character, who is more likely to have tried to take the hit for Will, not as a heroic sacrifice, but because he'd shown he actually wanted to take over the Flying Dutchman. It would have been the culmination of a number of gambits Jack was running to get the upper hand on everyone.

If they wanted the drama at the end with Will, which they'd been foreshadowing in the second movie, with obvious comparisons in the story of Davy Jones and Calypso, then they should have damn well followed through on the allegory they set up. But if they weren't going to have Elizabeth become the Pirate "King," and then the Pirate's Sea Goddess (thus freeing Calypso to act against Beckett, and also a nice gambit on the pirate's part to get rid of a leader), then they should have had Jack become the captain of the Flying Dutchman. As it is, they copped out on something between the two options, which while it gives a nice sentimental ending, ultimately didn't work in terms of the story.

Of course, the reason Disney didn't do this was because Jack was a breakout character, and this was a chance to side-line or write out Will and Elizabeth in future pirate movies.

Either way, yes, the story got messed up somewhere. Not even counting when they brought back Barbossa without explaining it, and then for some reason voodoo Calypso couldn't do the same for Jack? Just weird. (I know WHY, they had to have a big ham actor with Will while they went looking for Jack or the audience would've become bored, but there was no reason in the story for this)

I don't remember the showdown with the Kraken very well, but I do remember thinking that Elizabeth chaining Jack up was the only thing that worked in that scene.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:36 AM

STORYMARK

I'd say fantasy. There is little to no real science in the film, even if the characters are called scientists.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:41 AM

BYTEMITE

Actually... The film has a number of shout-outs to actual real world paranormal phenomena that have been documented, but that perhaps depends on whether you consider the field of paranormal research a scientific field. I wouldn't be surprised if none of us here did.

In any case, none of those phenomena actually apply to or shape the story.

Here's an alternative: Why don't we call it speculative fiction and call it good?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:51 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:

Of course, the reason Disney didn't do this was because Jack was a breakout character, and this was a chance to side-line or write out Will and Elizabeth in future pirate movies.

Also Keira and Orlando had said they weren't interested in another film, and Depp was. This was in part because as bad as they butchered Jack, that was nothing compared to what they did to Will and Elizabeth.

If Elizabeth Swan had stayed true to the character from the first movie, they probably could have had her for half a dozen of these. In fact, the first one is a great film, and the dynamic between the three characters works. I haven't read the book, but those who have say that's why, it was largely lifted from the book.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2011 8:18 AM

BYTEMITE

Yeah, the second and third films are a mess, and the third film in particular starts to get too long and suffer from arc fatigue. Too many running gags.

On the other hand, most of the complaints I have with the second and third film are story related- the plot structure is weak at best. I have no particular complaints about the character interactions though (convoluted, but makes the double-crossing more fun) or the character arcs, except for Elizabeth's. The Pirate King thing, while cool, also messed up the way her character fit in with the other two main characters, and made it inexplicable when she gave up the lifestyle and reverted to original type.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:04 AM

DREAMTROVE

It's just a trainwreck. Another flaw, common to sequels, is no story contrast. If you think about PotC or Raiders or Jurassic Park or Alien or any decent movie, contrast is key:

Scary is only scary if the scene before it is not scary. Funny is funny if it contrasts with serious, and is unexpected. An unexpected contrasting absurdity that shines an inner truth is decently funny. Funny after funny after funny is slapstick. While this is entertaining when leslie nielsen does it, it's impossible to carry on a serious story underneath.

Sorry if I said this already.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:45 AM

TRAVELER

When I go to the library or a bookstore I find fantasy novels under science fiction. They don't distinguish between them.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:14 AM

DMI

Expired, forgotten, spoiled rotten.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Actually... The film has a number of shout-outs to actual real world paranormal phenomena that have been documented, but that perhaps depends on whether you consider the field of paranormal research a scientific field. I wouldn't be surprised if none of us here did.

In any case, none of those phenomena actually apply to or shape the story.

Here's an alternative: Why don't we call it speculative fiction and call it good?

I've always liked the term speculative fiction, but whatever you call it's all good. I just thought it would be a good discussion starter.

Interesting point though: I consider Ghostbusters scifi and yet I don't consider the field of paranormal research a scientific one. Hypocrisy? There's something I might have to own up to...

-----------------------------
I pray for one last landing,
on the globe that gave me birth.
Let me rest my eyes on the fleecy skies
and the cool, green hills of Earth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE