Sign In

Close
Forgot your password? No account yet?

Fantasy being "too real" by Rainbow Apocalypse

The Star Wars prequels were really something else. In the third installment (Revenge of the Sith), main characters died all over the place and then children were murdered. Children - were - murdered. So, do you remember many people (if anyone) reeling back in the theater and screeching? Getting sick? Covering their eyes? Why did it seem to have no large impact what so ever? Realistically, such a horrid thing should have been like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-cHXkGchEo

It wasn't though.
Star Wars is just as fantastical a setting as Game of Thrones, so why in the world did the Red Wedding have the effect it did and Star Wars completely failed in showing almost equally disturbing images? Is it because it was more sudden and 'out of left field'? Is it because Game of Thrones uses less CGI? Is it because they showed more gore? Or is it because a mythical/fantasy setting full of ice zombies and dragons is somehow more believable then a sci-fi setting full of space wizards? Both Game of Thrones and Star Wars take place in equally bizarre and silly environments, so what is really going on here? Well, our minds are smarter then you might give them credit for. We know fantasy worlds aren't "real", but we also know how reality is basically supposed to work. It doesn't matter if the story we're watching is taking place in the mystical land of Westeros or on planet Tatooine; that's not what makes something real to us.
What makes something real to us is an effort to convince us it is, that's 'suspension of disbelief'. How does that happen if our minds are so good at identifying fake things? Well, believe it or not our minds might not be looking exactly where you think they are when judging this stuff. It's not looking at the dragons or sarlacc pits, it's looking at things it can identify; things it already knows the workings of. Take people for example: when you see people landing fine from 50ft drops and walking away unhurt, that's a subconscious signal to your brain that everything you're seeing is most definitely fake. When you see someone actually brake a foot from a small drop or suffer another serious injury that any person would had gotten from the same situation, that's a signal to your brain that what your seeing is real, even if it isn't. It doesn't even matter if there are dragons or spaceships flying around, it never did.

That is one of the things Game of Thrones is quite good at: emphasizing mortality. The Red Wedding in particular did this well, so well that many people forgot they were watching a TV show. You know what else added to the wince factor of the Red Wedding and made it seem so alarming? Aside from the great acting and realistic reactions from everyone, it was one of those things that was so horrific, it could be true. That's the shitty thing about reality; it's shitty. Our own history is full of this kind of stuff, and we know that. We know how crappy people can be, and we know how pointlessly grim and sudden death can be to. What we don't know is how destroying an entire world full of millions cannot elicit a single tear from the only survivor who had to watch, (a survivor who seems to suffer no real emotional trauma later). Millions died, but it wasn't that big of a deal. Plot wise it most certainly was... but for us, personally? No, it wasn't really that big of a deal at all. No one actually cried over Alderaan... but they could have. All it would have taken is a little convincing that this was as big a tragedy as the plot was trying to convince us it was. Again, our minds weren't looking at the space death ray, they were looking at the people, most notably the person watching their planet explode. That said, I've seen people act more hysterical to their dog getting hit by a car then how princess Leia acted to seeing her planet get destroyed.

If Leia actually had a believable, gut-wrenching breakdown, some people might have been better able to understand the gravity of what was supposed to be taking place. Sensitive people might have even freaked out, to. That's how far a situation can pull you in if it seems believable enough. The reason why the Red Wedding (and Game of Thrones in general) can make people feel uncomfortable the way it does is because some part of people's brains believe what it is they're seeing. Whether or not you love or hate Game of Thrones, you have to applaud this fantasy world for being so believable it can do that to people. Most shows about modern day real life can't even do that.

But don't get me wrong here, I'm well aware that's not the purpose of Star Wars. Star Wars is literally just there to entertain and have fun. It is just fine the way it is. Funny enough, things like Alderaan exploding and other disturbing scenes in Star Wars were probably under-acted and done the way they were on purpose because of the unsettling implicates. That just goes to show there is place for everything, Red Weddings and cartoonish space battles alike.

The reason I brought all this up to begin with is because I think it's important to realize and consider these things and the different effects they have on people, especially with the internet being so full of creative minds. I know it's easy to say "This is all fantasy, so whatever" but that's not really true at all. Regardless of what it is you're making, everything is just as real as you decide to make it. And just like with the Red Wedding, take that concept as positively or negatively as you want, because it can easily be either depending on who you ask.

Fantasy being "too real"

Rainbow Apocalypse

Journal Information

Views:
431
Comments:
11
Favorites:
6
Rating:
General

Tags

(No tags)

Comments

  • Link

    I honestly think you're off-base here.

    The Red Wedding gets the reaction it does because the series as a whole took the time to develop its characters, and give us reason to actually care about them. Then it executes (ha ha) the scene incredibly well.

    The Jedi children, by contrast, are introduced just to be slaughtered later on, as lazy shorthand for "ANAKIN IS EVIL". There's no emotional investment in them: they die, and we simply don't care. You can even see Ewan McGregor trying not to laugh when he asks about "the younglings". We don't care about Alderaan because Leia doesn't have a breakdown afterward, we don't care about Alderaan because we had no reason to before it blew up. All that ties into the storytelling, not how realistically-handled a scene is.

    What feels "real" in fiction- the suspension of disbelief- is entirely based on how consistently the rules set up by the fiction are applied. Pirates of the Caribbean and District 9 are wholly different films, but both are incredibly effective at setting up their tension and emotional pay-offs, in part because both play by their own set of rules (and because they were both well-made). If either of them were to for one scene take on the traits of the other, we'd cry foul, because that's now how it works within that fiction.

    Commando is ridiculous to the degree of being a cartoon, but we buy in because it was ridiculous consistently. We understand the rules, and play along as long as the movie does. And we care only because the fiction gives us a reason to.

  • Link

    The Red Wedding gets the reaction it does because the series as a whole took the time to develop its characters, and give us reason to actually care about them.

    That's just it though, I don't think it did. Aside from the pregnant woman I didn't really like any of those characters. I mean even her husband was basically just "scraggly good guy who is son number so&so of the first main goodguy". Looking at it from that perspective, he wasn't even really anymore developed then Anakin. All he did after his dad died was lead the war, and I can't even recall what he did before that. The show has made MUCH better characters out of many of the people it's focusing on now. Ultimately I don't think it mattered who of the cast was at that wedding, I just think it was wonderfully executed. I barely cared about any of these characters, but I was still wonderfully disturbed by what I saw. The screams alone were perfectly real, you could just feel the anger and sorrow and shock in them. The way the characters stood, acted and grieved was all so perfectly real, it was unsettling to watch. All that little detail combined with the plausibility of it all given their circumstances and their own motivations (as well as the motivations of the people killing them) made it all near life-like.

    I do agree though that the "people" in the Starwars prequels where shallow representations at best, and ultimately it didn't matter what happened to them.

    • Link

      I think it's kind of a combination of the two?

      Just because you didn't necessarily like the characters doesn't mean a) they weren't developed and b) other people didn't like them. My one friend is the biggest Catherine Stark fan I have ever met lol. And it's not that he was as developed than Anakin, it's that he was more developed than the younglings. You're right, it probably wouldn't have mattered which members of the cast were killed, but that's because all of the GoT cast are more developed about the younglings. Even if you don't personally care about them, you understand the significance in the story. I know I personally get a stronger emotional response to people reacting other characters' deaths than to the deaths themselves, so there's that too.

      But I do think the acting, script, cinematography, etc all played an important role too. I think it's a case of it not working without one or the other. I mean think of all the other nameless characters in GoT no one really cares about either. People don't get overemotional in their deaths either, no matter how well the scene is done.

      • Link

        Oh you're definitely right: it is a combination. I wasn't attached to the characters, but I know others were, yet we had the same reactions. while the combination made it stronger I just don't think the 'development' of the characters alone made all the difference. While that is nice you can still show the death of a developed and important character and have it mean very little if nothing about it is believable and the atmosphere and tone is wrong, which is basically what I was saying in the journal. People forget there is more to it then just the characters and their development, they need to have their suspension of disbelief in order for those characters to matter to begin with.

        • Link

          ^^^ Yeeeeep pretty much this

    • Link

      I hate to be someone says 'if you read the books...' but Rob, just like Ned, is honour bound. He's also young (I think 18 at the start). He's out for revenge and trying to be a king his people will respect. He's a tragic character thrown into leading a war after so long at peace.

      • Link

        I imagine the books must have done him more justice, because I wasn't really seeing it. I'm actually happy the two older Stark sons were separated at the start because I couldn't even tell them apart in the show, let alone identify much of their personalities =x

        • Link

          Jon (on the wall) was a dark sheep, didn't know his mother, not liked by Catlyn. Rob is similar, but legitimate.

          Honestly, the worst treated character on the tv show when compared to the books is Danerys. She comes across as spoiled or petulent when she really just wants to go home. And home for her is a place with a red door, not the iron throne. She's also my guess of who the 'winner' is... which means she'll probably die in a shocking development.

          • Link

            I don't think she comes across as spoiled or petulant? I haven't read the books but I honestly haven't gotten that from her in the show. I see her as proud, determined, and, for lack of a more eloquent word, badass, yet still kind-hearted. She knows what she wants and how to get it and is willing to do whatever she has to to make it happen. She'll try diplomacy first, but if that doesn't work, she's willing to use force. If that's what you mean by "spoiled" I have to disagree.

            Sorry she's kind of my feminist icon so I get a little defensive over her XD

  • Link

    I can safely say that the scene in Game of Thrones that emotionally tore me apart was the execution of Eddard Stark. and the reactions of his family. because they felt how I felt. a good man had been murdered by a petty child. it resonated with me in a way that few things ever had. the injustice of it. the pain and horror of his daughters. I felt like I knew enough about Lord Stark to care about what happened to him, and the inevitability of what happened made the emotional impact all the more real.

    • Link

      That said, Star wars is a favorite of mine as well. and I always felt that it was a little weird that Leia didn't have a more pronounced reaction to Alderaan getting exploded.

      I derped a bit and could've condensed this into one comment but didn't.

      Excellent journal by the way.