You could have “service golems” that are meant for maintaining some sort of magitek network. Then it’s just a matter of putting his hand on the rune and using Applied Phlebotenum to “tap into” the magic controlling the crusher.
I have to wonder at this point, though.
Aren’t we just proving the adage that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic? Or rather, that sufficiently powerful magic is indistinguishable from technology? If you ramp up the magic levels enough, you could recast any science fiction story into fantasy. Where is the line drawn?
Blade Runner is certainly a lot more than that. (And characterizing Deckard primarily as a “person in position of power” is a little odd.)
The key in Blade Runner, for this particular theme, is the idea of constructed biological beings, with human-engineered “false” memories, and how these challenge a conventional understanding of humanity. Crucially, the story turns on this being (speculated to become) a science-based, technological possibility; there’s no magic, no god to ensoul the replicants. (If there were, the existential challenge would be lost.)
Decker has the power of life and death. Decker is free to live as he chooses. The Replicants cannot do that.
In my escaped slave bounty hunter story, the “Decker” can come to realise that the slaves have all the same dreams, desires, and nobility of character (if not more, as they have come to value life more) the masters do.
Same same, no “god did it”, no magic, no need to resort to technology, either, to tell the same tale of empathic discovery. (Empathy for a group of people deemed property, inferior, and assumed too stupid to survive on their own.) Essentially, the same story of trying to figure out what defines us (or motivates us).
Y’all are trying to force a needless direct conversion of the trash-compactor scene. It’s just a trap. The nature of it carries no particular meaning, relative to the themes of the story. It could be a cave filling with water, and Artoo the dwarf, with his special dwarf talents and plucky little-personality, finds the key or figures out the trick to unlock the grate for everyone to escape through. Heck, that scene could even look pretty much the same. There’s no reason it has to be that close either.
What is the basis for the shared humanity in your version? It’s not something made by humans, therefore the discovery of it doesn’t present the same challenge to the audience.
Well, perhaps I’m misremembering his actions in the films then. I just watched ESB yesterday and most of Artoo’s actions were tied to him being electronic. But I actually do give up on this one.
Then perhaps you haven’t read my posts. The core of the story can be the same, yes, but the core of the story is not the interesting bit. This is not the first time I’ve said this. Shakespeare’s plays actually are dependent on time and place, it’s just that they work in some other times and places too; they become different stories. I’m quite comfortable with adaptations - the story adapts and changes.
When you get down to the core of the story, there are very few stories, and they’re not very interesting. It’s the details that count.
Nobody’s claimed that SW is the only science fiction (of some sub-genre) film that can be changed to fantasy, but it has been claimed that SW can be categorised as fantasy purely because it’s easy to change it to fantasy by changing the characters and a few events. I was pointing out that yes, it can be, but that changes it rather a lot, same as it would for other films. You guys chiming in to disagree with me does kinda look like you’re saying SW is unusual in changing character by changing genre.
For the record, I’m saying that the way you can tell that Star Wars isn’t science fiction is that the *character *of the story–not to say the look or the box-office appeal–doesn’t change by dressing it as something other than space opera.
The difference, however, is that while the protagonist is facing the same challenge, the audience is not. In any movie about American slavery, a modern audience is going to come into the film with the presupposition that the slaves are as fully human as the slave catcher. If he’s hunting robots, the audience has to overcome some of the same prejudices as the protagonist. This is, I think, the key theme to the movie: what defines us as human? And, if we create a machine that mimics humans perfectly, have we not created a human? By recasting the movie as a slave drama, you’ve resolved that question from the outset, because obviously the slaves are as human as the slave catcher, even the slave catcher hasn’t figured it out yet. The movie becomes about a person catching up to modern concepts of morality, instead of pushing the boundaries of modern concepts of morality.
The slaves may be force-bred in captivity, thus “created by design” by the owners. (Bred for strength or looks, for example.)
The slaves are only taught what they need to know by the owners to accomplish their tasks, just like the replicants.
The slaves seek to “teach” themselves forbidden knowledge, like learning to read, would be similar to Roy Batty’s group trying to “collect memories” to fill the holes in their social skillset.
Both slaves and replicants exist only at the whim of the masters. Both may be killed within the law. Both may escape captivity, and will suffer punishment for doing so.
Both are not considered “fully human”. Slaves were considered “animals”, in the mindset of the most racist owners (just above apes/monkeys), while replicants are biological machines (probably the majority of their DNA is straight out of a natural born human).
The technology angle (genetic tweaking) gives the movie an interesting twist, but it’s still the same old story.
Edit: Miller posted after my reply. I agree it’s a little different from the audiences historical perspective, and the surprise factor isn’t there, but these questions are not new. For example: the debates about in-vitro fetus modifications: is it moral to give my fetus pale skin and blue eyes?
Well, if you’re giving up, I won’t argue the point with you, other than to note that I disagree.
I don’t really see how you can say that setting Richard III in the 1940s, but not changing any of the text at all, constitutes creating a different story. And I disagree on an incredibly fundamental level that the core of the story is the least interesting part. By that logic, Star Crash is as good a movie as Star Wars. They’re both in space, they’ve both got lasers, they’ve both got robots. Same thing, right? But it’s the core of the story that makes Star Wars a classic movie, and Star Crash the sort of thing that’s best enjoyed in the company of a couple of puppets.
You disagree with him giving up? My, you are dedicated to this conversation!
No, but we’re talking about genre. If you set Richard III… IN SPACE!, you have changed genres. It certainly wouldn’t be a historical drama any more.
Story is only one element of genre. Star Wars, IMHO, is a mythological epic set in space using the tropes of science fiction. For that last reason alone, therefore, it qualifies as science fiction, albeit of the “soft” variety.
Oh, I agree completely. But I’m not entirely uncertain you couldn’t make a reasonable shot-by-shot transposition of Star Wars into fantasy (for generous definitions of fantasy by applying the inverse of Clarke’s Third Law). This applies to almost any Sci-Fi, even “hard” Sci-Fi. After all, any sufficiently analyzed and researched magic is not only indistinguishable from science, it IS science within the laws of the universe you define, no less so than physics in our world. Of course, a lot of times it won’t remain faithful to the spirit or feel, but I’m pretty sure you can do it.
So, would you count Frankenstein as a science fiction story, as it concerns the creation of a human-constructed biological being?
I feel like a few things need clearing up here. To start I’ll mention that the original Star Wars is one of my two favorite movies of all time, but I also know that my taste in movies is decidedly not universal, because my other favorite - Velvet Goldmine - was widely considered to be a failure. So I can understand that some things won’t appeal to everyone, and Star Wars is one of those things.
I’ll also note that I first saw them in the late 90’s/early 00’s, at age 9 or 10, and already knew some major plot points (Vader is Anakin, etc.). Not childhood nostalgia but I wasn’t an adult either.
And that the prequels fucking suck.
- Star Wars wasn’t only considered great because it was innovative (wrt the filmmaking technology). Star Wars was also intended to be nostalgic, and to recall sci-fi comics and pulp serials (and yes, Kurosawa films) that Lucas had enjoyed growing up. A lot of the plot points that we think of as cliches now were cliche then. The evil empire. The princess who appears to be a damsel in distress but actually knows how to hold her own in a fight. The young farm boy who would save the world. The mystical, secret order of wise old knights who fight with a mysterious power on their side. The lovable rogue. None of these are new now but they weren’t new then either.
For some people that won’t be interesting and never will; they’re looking for movies that make them think. For others, something that was a modern update of what were already old tropes in 1975 will look dated in 2011, and they’ll prefer the 2011-era updates of them. (I’m not exactly sure what the equivalent would be, someone help me. Avatar? The new Star Trek adaptation?)
-
Star Wars isn’t simplistic. There’s a lot of worldbuilding and character development that went into the background detail. Part of why I, and many other fans, fell in love with these films is because we could imagine more adventures in its universe.
-
My other favorite thing about them is not the story: it’s the characters and dialogue, which I find really compelling. But it’s a distinct style of writing and will only appeal to certain people. This is also where people tend to divide on another favorite of mine - Firefly.
-
Star Wars does have a lot of fantasy elements, but it’s not just a fantasy. Someone touched on this by noting that swords-and-sorcery fantasy doesn’t have ships that can travel between planets, but let me just be especially clear about this: Star Wars differs from fantasy in scope. This relates to point #2. The potential for new locations and cultures, for REALLY BIG THINGS battling each other, for new monsters (aliens) - they’re all much greater than a fantasy version could ever be.
-
No, they’re not strictly kids’ movies, but they are more so than things like Star Trek. They’re not very cerebral. They’re not very dark, even when horrific things happen. They’re fun action/adventure movies. If that’s not what you like, then you will not like Star Wars. And that’s okay.
Frankenstein is a science fiction story, the weird example of a science fiction story that goes on to conclude science is what’s killing us all. Bloody Romanticists. Shakes fist Though it’s also horror. I guess you could say it’s SF/horror in the same way Star Wars is SF/F.
Everybody I ever heard argue from authority on the subject said that Mary Shelley was the spring of science fiction. Wiki always waters it down.
Oh, OK. This definitely is what “old” must feel like. :eek:
Yeah, I get that a lot here…