What Are You Reading?

[Hawki]

What I am saying is that, a movie which attempts to show black holes, fifth dimensional space in three dimensions, and alien worlds demonstrates enough imagination that it cannot realistically be called one of the worst movies of the year, unless that person simply hasn't seen many movies and I'm pretty sure Hawki has seen several since he's listed them.

I've repeatedly stated that Interstellar was the worst movie THAT I'D SEEN. I don't recall calling it the worst movie of the year, because there's undoubtedly worse movies that have been released (e.g. Transformers). That's also in the realm of movies I saw in the theatre, because if one counts DVDs for instance, worst film I'd seen this year would probably go to the Doom movie (yes, I subjected myself to it...again...). But again, when one asks what movies you've seen this year, no-one's going to care about movies that you saw for the first time that came out ages ago.

So, by the standards of what movies I did see at the cinema this year, Interstellar was the worst I saw.

What I also find strange is that he goes on to applaud Gravity for these things and then talks about good characters. Makes me almost certain that we saw too different movies since there was nothing special about the characters, they were vessels for you to experience the "oh shit" moments of spaceships falling apart. I understand some of the themes he was referring to, but that has nothing to do with the characters.

Except those themes had everything to do with the characters. Everything is based on how Stone acts, reacts, talks, remains silent, etc. Spaceships falling apart are obstacles, but it's how characters react to those obstacles (and the entire predicament) that makes them interesting, not the obstacles themselves. As spectacular as the effects were, they're not the reason why I consider Gravity as highly as I do.

And conversely, Interstellar's themes are tied to the characters as well. I've already mentioned that the main theme of Interstellar is what I'd label as love, how it's a story of a father's love for his daughter transcending time and space. Just for me, that fell flat due to its execution. I guess you can also say that Interstellar is thematically about mankind's place in the universe, exploration, etc., but those are themes hardly unique to it, and again, it's hammered over and over (per those dialogue excerpts I listed), and loses any subtlety it might have had.

If you were focusing on the characterization the entire time, you missed the vast majority of the movie and I'm not surprised you didn't enjoy it. You seem to be a pretty character focused kind of person which is why we tend to disagree so atleast its understandable.

Look at the list I made. Plot, to me, is as much a problem for Interstellar. But even that aside, Interstellar is still character focused. It has a main protagonist (Cooper), who goes on the hero's journey, with an obstacle (Earth, planetary hazards) and a goal (save humanity).

I'll concede that I'm a character-focused individual, but Interstellar is still a character-focused film, or at the least, its characters remain prominent in it.

This, however, is utterly incomprehensible. I'm curious though, compare to WoL, how does Interstellar hold up in storytelling, in your opinion?

That's hard to say since you're comparing different mediums. If anything, I'd say WoL bears more resemblance to a TV show than a film, in that you've got the primary storyline (artifacts), and numerous sub-plots (the mission arcs). In terms of storytelling style, that's also hard to say, since the only frame of reference WoL has is its cutscenes, whereas everything else is as a game. For instance, the story-mode space, spending time talking to characters. In a game, this works, because the player can go through it at their own pace. In a film, this would be terrible, because it would be one conversation after another with little flow between them.

Interstellar, concerning its storytelling...this is hard to say, but as I've listed before, here's some of the issues I had with it:

-The close-up shots. I can't really point to a specific example, but onboard the ship, so much time is spent up on close-up facial shots of the characters, which makes it harder to take in what's going on around them. Again, comparison to Gravity - close-ups as well, but plenty of time to see the background and let it sink in. As pretty as Saturn is for instance, it feels like it's seen for just a moment, and then gone.

-Thematic repetition (see the dialogue cues). To use another Nolan example, there's 'Batman Begins.' The phrase "it's not who you are that defines you, it's what you do" is used twice, the first as part of normal conversation. Both are at key points of Bruce's character development, the second at a key point in plot as well. While a platitude, it has weight in that it isn't overused, and both times it is used, it's applied at key points. Interstellar seems content to repeat these cues over and over, and try and convey all its themes through dialogue. In that regard, even WoL trumps it. It has its catchphrases, sure ("time to kick this revolution into overdrive") and its platitude ("we are who we choose to be") but these aren't repeated ad nauseum. If anything, the latter encompasses everything about WoL thematically - choice (though I've argued that the main theme is redemption, but whatever).

-Breathing space. Nolan seems very keen on making the movie move forward very quickly. 'The Dark Knight Rises' is another of his films that I felt had the same problem, that the first half of the film is just one scene after another with no time being given to breathe. In Interstellar, it's similar, but, it often feels like scenes are being done like this so that Nolan can move onto what he considers to be more interesting stuff. The goodbye scene for instance, it comes off as saying "come on Murph, I'm only going on a space trip that I don't know how long it will take, or if I'm even coming back, or if I'll ever see you again - why are you being so unreasonable?" Now to be fair, there's a scene that is allowed to breathe, and it's where Cooper sees the messages his son has sent. This is shot excellently, because we see everything Cooper is feeling. Love for his son. Regret at not being there. By the end of it he's a wreck. And all of this is without Cooper saying a line of dialogue. But unfortunately, not only is it the exception to the rule, but it becomes academic to the plot, in that Cooper never mentions his son again (again, I was asking, where was his son on the space station? And why does Cooper never ask about him?) To contrast, there's the "we are who we choose to be" scene in WoL. Both scenes are similar in that they show the protagonist at their lowest. But while Interstellar trumps WoL in terms of those scenes by themselves (Cooper just crying is more impacting by itself than Raynor's lines), WoL edges it out by making the scene mean something in the wider context. And again, WoL's done something similar at the start, when Raynor looks at the vidsnap of Kerrigan. I knew exactly what Raynor was thinking and feeling, and I didn't need a line of dialogue to tell me what it was.

So yeah. Usually I wouldn't compare the two since they're different mediums and all that. But since it was brought up...

And wasn't this about what we were reading?

[TheEconomist]

@Nissa: You're still misunderstanding what I mean by set pieces and special effects so there's not really much I can continue to say to you.

I've repeatedly stated that Interstellar was the worst movie THAT I'D SEEN.

In the exact quote you linked to I said that I was talking about movies that you'd seen.

What I am saying is that, a movie which attempts to show black holes, fifth dimensional space in three dimensions, and alien worlds demonstrates enough imagination that it cannot realistically be called one of the worst movies of the year, unless that person simply hasn't seen many movies and I'm pretty sure Hawki has seen several since he's listed them.

[TheEconomist]

Here's the trailer for The Expanse TV series, not sure what to think or how to rank since I'm not too well-versed in syfy series. I'll watch it when it comes out and, either way, there's worse things I can do with my time. Worst part of it though will probably be the clash between my interpretations of the characters and the shows'. Five books into the series, I've got pretty well fleshed out visions of them and none of them looked like these.

The trailer doesn't show it, but I hope they get into the more interesting aspects of the series. I'd hate for it to always be an Earth vs Mars vs Belters thing the whole way through. So much more to explore in the series.

[TheEconomist]

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2015/01/elo...tructions#more

May be of interest to some. Iain M Banks just got pushed up to my next sci fi author to read, even though he's been there for while, I feel a bit more inclined to actually start


You know a series is good when modern day innovators are naming space ships after them and respected intellectuals are writing essays theorizing on possible future systems of government based on speculation in a science fiction novel.

[Hawki]

So, time to stir the barrel:

The Expanse

I saw the trailer awhile ago, no thanks to Syfy's region locking I might add. In a word, it looks...bleh. Forgive me for not being impressed when it goes on about "the greatest conspiracy in human history" (or words to that effect) is a tagline, especially when it's to do with the protomolucule (which I never found that interesting to begin with). Frankly, I'm just done with the series I think. Yeah, I've only read the first two books, but I think that's giving a series plenty of time to make a good impression.

As a side note, I've never found depiction clashes to be an issue. Even if I have my own concept of characters beforehand, I find that a visual medium will automatically replace them in my mind.

Mistborn: The Final Empire

I finished this awhile ago. I'm going to give it a stamp of "good," but I'm admittedly uneasy about it. I'm in a rare position of agreeing with the Economist, that it isn't really anything that I haven't seen before. The Allomancy system is interesting, but again, it's another magic system (small wonder it's already recieving tabletop and videogame adaptations). The world is fairly interesting (e.g. I like the idea of there being something inherantly wrong with the world, even if Kelsier's the only one that sees it), but I've seen worlds explored in greater depth, and a lot of it is in broad strokes. The characters are pleasant enough, but nothing too special. The action is okay, but I've always found action to be ill suited to novel form when compared to other mediums, so it's not really a selling point. The overall plot is okay, but again, while there's some good plot twists (e.g. the Lord Ruler actually being Razek), it's compounded by the fact that the LR is another case of "nice job breaking it, hero," in regards to his death. Even Kelsier's plan at becoming a martyr is mixed in that while it gets kudos for originality, it gets a minus as to how much he's leaving up to chance.

Still, I'm willing to go with a stamp of "good," as while it doesn't score that many points for originality, it's well written overall, and I'd eagerly read future installments.

Earth Unaware

Finished this today, and by proxy, the whole First Formic War trilogy. Another stamp of "good" - not as good as book 1, but better than book 2. I think what makes that the case is that book 1 feels by far the most character focused, with the arrival of the formics in the background. Book 2 is more focused on the action on Earth, and feels the most fillerish at times. Book 3 is kind of a mix of the two, and I'll give it credit as to how much I cared for the characters by the end of it, how each of them had gone through an arc of sorts. I'll give credit to the context also - the trilogy can easily stand on its own (sequel bait notwithstanding), but it's amplified by having read Ender's Game beforehand - in other words, fulfills the role of both being a sequel and a decent work. Also, I'm iffy about citing action as a pro in a novel (again, I think it's not a strength of the medium, that, and I generally dislike writing action scenes as well), but it's very well written. Book 2 had ground skirmishes, while book 3 has boarding actions coupled with space battles, plus, how the formics are an interesting species. Yeah, again, prequel status, but the book is able to highlight their mindset and 'culture,' for lack of a better word, so there's that as well.

So, again, "good."

[TheEconomist]

So, time to stir the barrel:

It's funny you should say that since that post is quite possibly the only post of yours I've read in years that I didn't disagree with. Syfy series always seem cheesy and stupid to me, that's why I've never seen any of them, but I'll still watch this just because. Was just curious how it stacked up against the others. Scifi TV is just never given the proper treatment, was hoping a big budget series like this might do better, which it probably will, just not enough.

Like I said in a post a while ago, it seems like the TV series latched onto the least interesting aspects. Although, to be fair, the government conspiracy could be more than the protomolecule since only the first book deals with that (and slightly in the second.) The third and fourth books deal with alternate dimensions and other grand technologies that I don't want to spoil. They could, maybe, incorporate that into the TV series if they allow for the government having known about these things then when, from reading book one, there was no indication that they had. Although that would require proper storytelling and writing and really good effects, which I doubt they'll push for. Although there's been greater leaps of lore and logic before (insert obvious community example)

Also, again, to put it simply, no, reading the first two books is not that great of an indication of your enjoyment of the third and fourth books. Yes, the characterization is the same, but the setting and focus is entirely different. The first two books dealt with the conflicts between the powers as a focus, while the third and fourth only have that as a backdrop. Not saying you should keep going since even I said i was disappointed with how sluggish the interesting portions of the story are in unravelling (and I'm not sure I'll read the fifth book when its released, as oppposed to the others that I did), but just saying that book one (especially book two) are abberations in the areas you referred to.


In others, news, I've read a crap ton of books since the last comment. but I'll leave discussion of those for another time.

[Visions of Khas]

Mistborn: The Final Empire [...]

I read Sanderson's The Emperor's Soul, which I thoroughly enjoyed, and kept seeing Sanderson's name bandied about on Reddit, so I thought I'd give Mistborn a shot. I finished The Final Empire several days ago and jumped into The Well of Ascension, and I'm about three-quarters through that. I read and understand all of your complaints -- I have the same, and a few more of my own -- and yet, I cannot put it down. I've been gobbling it up as fast as I can, and I have no idea why. I love those novels that jump from one place to another and let us explore the world. This book doesn't. And yet I can't stop reading. Nor can I properly place my finger on a few "somethings" that are missing from this book. The dialog's crap, and yet that doesn't bother me. I don't know if I'm losing my analytic edge or what.

[Hawki]

I read Sanderson's The Emperor's Soul, which I thoroughly enjoyed, and kept seeing Sanderson's name bandied about on Reddit, so I thought I'd give Mistborn a shot. I finished The Final Empire several days ago and jumped into The Well of Ascension, and I'm about three-quarters through that. I read and understand all of your complaints -- I have the same, and a few more of my own -- and yet, I cannot put it down. I've been gobbling it up as fast as I can, and I have no idea why. I love those novels that jump from one place to another and let us explore the world. This book doesn't. And yet I can't stop reading. Nor can I properly place my finger on a few "somethings" that are missing from this book. The dialog's crap, and yet that doesn't bother me. I don't know if I'm losing my analytic edge or what.

Concerning Mistborn, something I forgot to mention is the wordpainting. Minor point, but I loved the visuals the novel conjured in my mind. The mists, the grime of Luthandel, etc.

As for VoK's post, I didn't encounter any dialogue in book 1 I'd call "crap" - basic, maybe, but it was perfectly legible. As for travel, or the lack of it, that didn't concern me too much. I think it works in the context of the first book, in that everything remains focused on Luthandel, so other regions being periphery to that makes sense in both plot and lore (centre of the Empire and all that). I've seen jumping around locations work well in fantasy (e.g. A Song of Ice and Fire), but I think in the first novel it would be stretching it out a bit thin to do so.

Granted, everything I've said is focused on book 1. How'd book 2 turn out?

[Visions of Khas]

I'm three-quarters of the way through Hero of Ages, and I'm really liking it. One surprising but good aspect relates to the evolution of Spook's character, of all people. It's great to have Brandon Sanderson revisit older, seemingly small characters and flesh them out along the way. But HoA is also a bit of an exposition dump, as well. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But it finally -- finally -- expands on the Kandra, Mistwraiths, and Koloss, and that's the sort of thing I absolutely love about fantasy: exploring new and alien cultures and species.

[Hawki]

Going by subject:

EverQuest: No Poetry in Death

The EverQuest e-books have more or less become standard short reads for me - standard practice as part of short reads between larger works. I'm giving this installment a stamp of "good" for the following reasons:

-Writing: Most of the e-books have been written by the same author, and while that carries a lot of baggage (spoilers, there's elves involved...because of course there are), the writing feels far more relaxed. Nothing special, but it's good to see an author improve over time. And hey, a halfling protagonist. That makes a change.

-Tone: While still in the Swords n' Sorcery genre, there's a different tone here than many of the other EverQuest installments. More grim, more intrigue, etc. Again, nothing special, but it's a good mix of something new, but still being true to the setting.

-The Twist: No spoilers, but yes, I admit, the twist caught me at the end. It works in terms of plot, and in terms of the overall EQN setting, as to say "oh so that's when everything went downhill."

Probably giving this more attention than it deserves, but again, improvement for the series. So I think that deserves some praise.

Mistborn

I'm three-quarters of the way through Hero of Ages, and I'm really liking it. One surprising but good aspect relates to the evolution of Spook's character, of all people. It's great to have Brandon Sanderson revisit older, seemingly small characters and flesh them out along the way. But HoA is also a bit of an exposition dump, as well. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But it finally -- finally -- expands on the Kandra, Mistwraiths, and Koloss, and that's the sort of thing I absolutely love about fantasy: exploring new and alien cultures and species.

Wait...Spook becomes something more than a lovesick teenager? Huh.

Not sure about exposition dumps coming at the end of a trilogy, but hey, go figure.

The Ice Dragon

I picked this up because it's supposedly set in the same context as A Song of Ice and Fire. It was cheap, and thought, "well, why not?" After all, The Tales of Beedle the Bard was an enjoyable addition to Harry Potter, even if it is indeed written as a children's book. So how did this do?

...not as well.

First, the setting. I think it's really a stretch to claim it's in the same setting as ASoIaF, and even if it is, it doesn't really add anything to it. Not only are seasons standard (i.e. four seasons per year, as opposed to seasons that last years in Westeros), but it's hard to say when these events could have occurred, with kingdoms riding dragons against each other. I have to summize it would have to take place WAY in the past, to the extent that any trace of the setting would be erased, but if it's so far removed as to have no bearing on the setting, why bother at all?

Secondly, the story. It's...okay. It's very much a fable, and the writing is very much for children. Not that either of these are a bad thing, but...well, that's all there is. It's a children's story, protagonist wins, everything's alright at the end, yay. Not bad, but nothing special. I started making comparisons with Adara and Dany (Adara rides an ice dragon against fire-breathing ones, I could see Dany riding a fire-breathing dragon against the Others), but this idea lost traction once the settings didn't start to mesh up.

Overall, it gets a stamp of "okay." I think it's a nice fable that children will enjoy, but not much else.