Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
AduroT wrote: That’s why I don’t like that part. Yoda had to effort and concentration into lifting an XWing, vs Vader overpowering a ship actively trying to fly away. I would rather it had been just starting to lift off and he crushed the engines.
Honestly, I didn't like it because I couldn't figure out why he didn't just... do it again.
It was so effortless that a repeat performance seemed like the obvious thing, but no.
Part of it is that this version of Vader comes across as fairly fake to me. The physical presence just isn't there.
Not sure what it is, haven't really looked closely at it for CGI enhancements or whatever (in this particular case it might be standing in front of the very CGI ship), but it just made a very flat initial impression that stuck with me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/17 14:31:04
The thing that really struck me was the angle of the scale - it was totally off, as the ship looked too small compared to DV in some of those shots - how could all those people fit in such a tiny ship? Again, just sloppy, I don't care, let's get anything on screen attitude.
MDSW wrote: The thing that really struck me was the angle of the scale - it was totally off, as the ship looked too small compared to DV in some of those shots - how could all those people fit in such a tiny ship? Again, just sloppy, I don't care, let's get anything on screen attitude.
The ship itself looked pretty flimsy in comparison to others we’ve seen. Literally just a flying, assumed airtight and pressurised container. Certainly not armoured as such.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Dreadwinter wrote: One ship had Obi-Wan protecting it, the other did not. It is really that simple. Vader fell for it.
Obi-wan didn't protect... anything. Really, he got a lot of poor idiots killed, and actively encouraged a suicide attempt.
He just happened to be on the ship that didn't get force choked.
We know that he wasn't protecting the second ship with the force how?
You cannot prove a negative. You can prove a positive. We know Obi Wan WAS protecting the second ship how? What evidence do we have? Is it none? It looks a lot like none.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Dreadwinter wrote: One ship had Obi-Wan protecting it, the other did not. It is really that simple. Vader fell for it.
Obi-wan didn't protect... anything. Really, he got a lot of poor idiots killed, and actively encouraged a suicide attempt.
He just happened to be on the ship that didn't get force choked.
We know that he wasn't protecting the second ship with the force how?
You cannot prove a negative. You can prove a positive. We know Obi Wan WAS protecting the second ship how? What evidence do we have? Is it none? It looks a lot like none.
He was on it. That is how a soft magic system works.
He is a space wizard. You don't have to prove anything.
You don't even have to go that far. He knew Anakin would be absolutely enraged and just fed him a target that he would vent on, all the while knowing he'd be too blinded to see the real target just out of vision.
It was essentially just sound reasoning based on his own insight.
That Vader couldn't repeat what he did a second time can be ascribed to Obi Wan intervening, or simply a temporary lack of focus or energy on Vader's part in the immediate aftermath of doing it the first time.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Except that presupposes that it needs 'justifying'.
You can see something that needs an explanation as a plot hole. Or you can see it as something that just hasn't been clearly explained, and consider the possible explanations.
One of those options will generally lead to greater enjoyment of the show. The other just leads to complaints on an internet discussion board.
And honestly, I'd rather stick with enjoying the show.
insaniak wrote: Except that presupposes that it needs 'justifying'.
You can see something that needs an explanation as a plot hole. Or you can see it as something that just hasn't been clearly explained, and consider the possible explanations.
One of those options will generally lead to greater enjoyment of the show. The other just leads to complaints on an internet discussion board.
And honestly, I'd rather stick with enjoying the show.
Suspension of disbelief only works when there's at least some measure of internal consistency (or consistent inconsistency for some wackier shows like Pop Team Epic). Lucas already opened Pandora's box when he tried to quantify the force in individuals in some way via Midichlorians, so it's kinda late to back out now to start handwaving that things don't need to be explained at some level. I'm not even asking for the stupid wiki level exposition that some people want, I just want things to actually match the existing narrative and rules set by the universe. It's rough enough with the prequel and subsesquent sequel trilogy, but with low effort stuff like this it begs the question of how much damage control you can do before you admit you have no standards. I'm not saying Star Wars is premium Shakespearean writing in any sense, but at least it was engaging in terms of either the world building if not the delivery or acting. Stuff like Kenobi actively works against that with what Lance said regarding how it narratively shrinks the conflict and continues to minimize how you could ever see the Empire as a galaxy spanning threat and contradicts how characters are depicted later on in established parts of the story.
Just saying, "ayyyy Imma turn off my brain" to enjoy it is all nice and good, but don't frame it in a way where it's excusable just because you aren't bothered by how mediocre it is.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/06/18 04:37:51
...but thats you working backwards to justify how dumb this is with some kind of rational explanation for which you have no evidence.
Quoting this because the last several pages of this thread is riddled with people doing exactly this.
Quoting this because Star Wars has pretty much always done this.
Not ranting at you specifically, but this is something which has got on my nerves for a while now. And it’s folk complaining “modern SW movie/show didn’t explain X. Modern SW movie/show didn’t justify Y”, whilst neatly glossing over the simple fact much, if not most, of what we know about that universes does not in fact come from the movies, but other media.
Consider A New Hope.
What is a T-16? We don’t actually know, other than Luke used to bullseye Womp Rats in his one.
How can a far boy jump in their equivalent of a combat fighter and,…just…sort of know how to fly the thing in a combat situation?
Of course, we now know the T-16 is a Skyhopper. Made by Incom. Who also make the X-Wing. Apparently they have a pretty standardised control system, so if you can fly one Incom product, you can fly most if not all.of their products. Colossal, gaping plot hole explained. But not in the movie.
Remember people pretending to freak out because Rey was a good pilot? Explained (beyond her “we’ve got one” line so conveniently forgotten about) in Other Media.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
insaniak wrote: Except that presupposes that it needs 'justifying'.
You can see something that needs an explanation as a plot hole. Or you can see it as something that just hasn't been clearly explained, and consider the possible explanations.
One of those options will generally lead to greater enjoyment of the show. The other just leads to complaints on an internet discussion board.
And honestly, I'd rather stick with enjoying the show.
Suspension of disbelief only works when there's at least some measure of internal consistency (or consistent inconsistency for some wackier shows like Pop Team Epic). Lucas already opened Pandora's box when he tried to quantify the force in individuals in some way via Midichlorians, so it's kinda late to back out now to start handwaving that things don't need to be explained at some level. I'm not even asking for the stupid wiki level exposition that some people want, I just want things to actually match the existing narrative and rules set by the universe. It's rough enough with the prequel and subsesquent sequel trilogy, but with low effort stuff like this it begs the question of how much damage control you can do before you admit you have no standards. I'm not saying Star Wars is premium Shakespearean writing in any sense, but at least it was engaging in terms of either the world building if not the delivery or acting. Stuff like Kenobi actively works against that with what Lance said regarding how it narratively shrinks the conflict and continues to minimize how you could ever see the Empire as a galaxy spanning threat and contradicts how characters are depicted later on in established parts of the story.
Just saying, "ayyyy Imma turn off my brain" to enjoy it is all nice and good, but don't frame it in a way where it's excusable just because you aren't bothered by how mediocre it is.
See, that's exactly the point, though. If you didn't get the consistency you want with the Prequels, or the Sequels, or anything else released since then, surely accepting that the franchise just isn't for you is going to be healthier for your liver than watching each new thing expecting it to be something it isn't, and then complaining about all the reasons it isn't what you want.
I don't expect Star Wars to be particularly consistent, or to make a great deal of actual sense, because I accepted 30 years ago that George was just making it up as he went along and cared far more about it looking pretty than having an airtight setting.
Star Wars isn't hard Sci Fi. It's pulp fantasy adventure. Things happen because they fit the story being told today, or because they'll be visually impressive. If you're expecting more than that, you're doomed to eternal disappointment.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/06/18 05:22:06
...but thats you working backwards to justify how dumb this is with some kind of rational explanation for which you have no evidence.
Quoting this because the last several pages of this thread is riddled with people doing exactly this.
Quoting this because Star Wars has pretty much always done this.
Not ranting at you specifically, but this is something which has got on my nerves for a while now. And it’s folk complaining “modern SW movie/show didn’t explain X. Modern SW movie/show didn’t justify Y”, whilst neatly glossing over the simple fact much, if not most, of what we know about that universes does not in fact come from the movies, but other media.
Consider A New Hope.
What is a T-16? We don’t actually know, other than Luke used to bullseye Womp Rats in his one.
How can a far boy jump in their equivalent of a combat fighter and,…just…sort of know how to fly the thing in a combat situation?
Of course, we now know the T-16 is a Skyhopper. Made by Incom. Who also make the X-Wing. Apparently they have a pretty standardised control system, so if you can fly one Incom product, you can fly most if not all.of their products. Colossal, gaping plot hole explained. But not in the movie.
Remember people pretending to freak out because Rey was a good pilot? Explained (beyond her “we’ve got one” line so conveniently forgotten about) in Other Media.
Agree!
I think it was way more palatable at the beginning because the original trilogy presented itself as a lived in universe. We came in in the middle of the action with conflicts already occurring. Everything we were told about that was happening around the story was these interesting mystery elements. The Clone Wars, the Old Jedi Order, the Old Republic. It was the explanations that killed it. 4-6 are very consistent. They BECOME inconsistent when you get to the prequels, and the shows, and all the other nonsense that comes after. At least back in the day the X mas special and Droid/Ework cartoons were not canon. Now... wtf is all this?
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
insaniak wrote: Except that presupposes that it needs 'justifying'.
You can see something that needs an explanation as a plot hole. Or you can see it as something that just hasn't been clearly explained, and consider the possible explanations.
One of those options will generally lead to greater enjoyment of the show. The other just leads to complaints on an internet discussion board.
And honestly, I'd rather stick with enjoying the show.
Suspension of disbelief only works when there's at least some measure of internal consistency (or consistent inconsistency for some wackier shows like Pop Team Epic). Lucas already opened Pandora's box when he tried to quantify the force in individuals in some way via Midichlorians, so it's kinda late to back out now to start handwaving that things don't need to be explained at some level. I'm not even asking for the stupid wiki level exposition that some people want, I just want things to actually match the existing narrative and rules set by the universe. It's rough enough with the prequel and subsesquent sequel trilogy, but with low effort stuff like this it begs the question of how much damage control you can do before you admit you have no standards. I'm not saying Star Wars is premium Shakespearean writing in any sense, but at least it was engaging in terms of either the world building if not the delivery or acting. Stuff like Kenobi actively works against that with what Lance said regarding how it narratively shrinks the conflict and continues to minimize how you could ever see the Empire as a galaxy spanning threat and contradicts how characters are depicted later on in established parts of the story.
Just saying, "ayyyy Imma turn off my brain" to enjoy it is all nice and good, but don't frame it in a way where it's excusable just because you aren't bothered by how mediocre it is.
Wow, a lot wrong in this.
So, what about Midichlorians changes the fact that The Force has always been a soft magic system where it is used to fix things? Absolutely nothing. Are midichlorians dumb? Absolutely. Does it change the system in any way? Not at all.
The Empire is not and has never been a galaxy spanning threat. If you look at any map of the known Star Wars galaxy, the Empire owns such a small fraction of it that it is silly. Really just the inner core, about what the Republic owned, which wasn't that much. You have Hutt space, the outer rim. Then like half of the galaxy itself is unexplored. The Star Wars galaxy is not and has never been, fully discovered.
I'm not sure what you mean by a 'soft magic system' (it doesn't line up with anything I've ever seen anyone else use the term for), and it certainly doesn't handwave away anything.
The Empire not being a 'galaxy spanning threat' is a 'so what?' statement. Everyone we've ever been introduced to lives in the part they do threaten.
Star Wars isn't hard Sci Fi. It's pulp fantasy adventure. Things happen because they fit the story being told today, or because they'll be visually impressive. If you're expecting more than that, you're doomed to eternal disappointment.
Ok, but what about the stuff that keeps happening that doesn't fit the story being told today and isn't visually impresive?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/06/18 15:40:15
Voss wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by a 'soft magic system' (it doesn't line up with anything I've ever seen anyone else use the term for), and it certainly doesn't handwave away anything.
The Empire not being a 'galaxy spanning threat' is a 'so what?' statement. Everyone we've ever been introduced to lives in the part they do threaten.
Star Wars isn't hard Sci Fi. It's pulp fantasy adventure. Things happen because they fit the story being told today, or because they'll be visually impressive. If you're expecting more than that, you're doomed to eternal disappointment.
Ok, but what about the stuff that keeps happening that doesn't fit the story being told today and isn't visually impresive?
Soft Magic System is a well known identification of how magic systems work in fantasy settings. It means that the system does not have to have a defined set of rules. It certainly does hand wave things away, that is the point of a Soft Magic System. You cant say it doesn't do something when you don't even know what it is.
The Empire doesn't threaten the whole galaxy. Less than half of the galaxy in Star Wars is explored or inhabited. The Empire certainly does not roam around Hutt Space willy nilly, which is why they aren't dropping entire platoons on the planet to catch Obi-Wan. So context matters. You can't really 'so what?' that.
What stuff is happening that doesn't fit the story being told today? What is not visually impressive?
Voss wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by a 'soft magic system' (it doesn't line up with anything I've ever seen anyone else use the term for), and it certainly doesn't handwave away anything.
It's a somewhat pointless delineation proposed by Brandon Sanderson that basically applies the hard scifi/soft scifi dynamic to magic systems. Soft magic = a magic system that has no stated hard or fast rules, hard magic = a magic system with clearly defined rules. I call it pointless because I'd argue 'hard magic' is indistinguishable from fantastic science and therefore isn't really magic at all. Magic is magic because it's not understood. That's the whole point of 'magic.' Alternately, I'm someone who thinks the 'gameifcation' of fiction is annoying and something that Sanderson's Hard/Soft delineation has made worse so I'm not really inclined to like it in the first place *shrugs*
Within the scope of how Sanderson writes, what it really represents is an ideology on drama and narrative tension; that consequences are more interesting than powers, and that the more the audience understands something the more they'll appreciate it and the more an author can do with it without running into SOD problems. The actual logic behind the division is actually more interesting and useful than the division itself imo.
I'd charge it isn't well-known at all. It's been popularized by Sanderson and Sanderson's fanbase which also overlaps a lot with constructed world communities, which is quite large and present on the Internet but outside that particular base there's been little penetration of the idea into the broader space of fiction.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/06/18 16:05:55
The Hard/Soft Magic system is only a term used by Sanderson that got popular. Those systems existed and the difference between them was recognized long before Sanderson used it.
Most Fantasy/Sci-Fi writers use those terms now, it isn't just Sanderson and his fanbase. There is wide overlap across the world.
Dreadwinter wrote: Those systems existed and the difference between them was recognized long before Sanderson used it.
Loosely sure, but the basic premise of hard/soft magic extends now directly from Sanderson's Laws of Magic and discussion of it;
1. An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.
2. Weaknesses, limits and costs are more interesting than powers.
3. The author should expand on what is already a part of the magic system before something entirely new is added, as this may otherwise entirely change how the magic system fits into the fictional world.
And it's mostly an extension that only exists in and around Sanderson's fanbase, something I learned fast when the Wikipedia article for Hard and Soft magic was deleted because Sanderson himself was the only source anyone could find discussing it that wasn't dismissive of the idea (the specific reason for the deletion was literally 'lack of notability' and Wikipedia's definition of notability is vast).
Most Fantasy/Sci-Fi writers use those terms now,
I feel very confident when I tell you no they don't. The term is far more popular in spaces talking about fantasy and sci-fi and constructed worlds than it is among writers. And Sanderson is atypical in how he approaches writing. I don't think most authors think about the nuts and bolts of what they do to nearly the degree Sanderson does.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/06/18 16:25:26
Voss wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by a 'soft magic system' (it doesn't line up with anything I've ever seen anyone else use the term for), and it certainly doesn't handwave away anything.
The Empire not being a 'galaxy spanning threat' is a 'so what?' statement. Everyone we've ever been introduced to lives in the part they do threaten.
Star Wars isn't hard Sci Fi. It's pulp fantasy adventure. Things happen because they fit the story being told today, or because they'll be visually impressive. If you're expecting more than that, you're doomed to eternal disappointment.
Ok, but what about the stuff that keeps happening that doesn't fit the story being told today and isn't visually impresive?
Soft Magic System is a well known identification of how magic systems work in fantasy settings. It means that the system does not have to have a defined set of rules. It certainly does hand wave things away, that is the point of a Soft Magic System. You cant say it doesn't do something when you don't even know what it is.
So 'soft magic' = any amount of bad writing and donkey-pulls around magic is fine. Gotcha.
The Empire doesn't threaten the whole galaxy. Less than half of the galaxy in Star Wars is explored or inhabited.
And people (specifically characters we care about on screen) don't go there. You're making a 'it wasn't a world war because no one fought on Antarctica' argument.
The Empire certainly does not roam around Hutt Space willy nilly, which is why they aren't dropping entire platoons on the planet to catch Obi-Wan. So context matters. You can't really 'so what?' that.
But... they did drop an entire platoon on the planet. They all lined up to shoot at the door.
There were also stormtroopers and Inquisitors all over Empty Quarry Planet, Evil City Planet and Tattooine itself.
No one runs off to hide in Hutt Space (successfully or otherwise) so it does not matter that the Empire can't roam around 'willy nilly' (according to you, anyway, in the films that doesn't even seem to be a thing characters are aware of).
Whatever hypothetical point you're trying to make here, its denied by the _fact_ that there are Imperials everywhere they go in the actual show.
What stuff is happening that doesn't fit the story being told today? What is not visually impressive?
The entire horror-movie-stalker scene that ends with obi-wan being dragged through fire to no lasting effect. No idea why that happened (beyond contradicting the New Hope implication that 'Vader is now the master' and will now win their duel, having never done that before), and the entire sequence looked like crap (too dark, trivial obstacles and Vader looked too fake). As did the knock-off batman roof running on the Planet of Crushed Dreams. Forcing choking the spaceship was cheesy CGI, and too easy.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/06/18 16:34:58
So 'soft magic' = any amount of bad writing and donkey-pulls around magic is fine. Gotcha.
Maybe a bit unnecessarily hostile.
Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Warhammer 40k would all probably fall under the soft side of the scale. None of them have particularly explicit rules for how 'magic' works. It's just a thing that happens. I wouldn't say it = bad writing. Mostly it'll only get bad if the audience decides to be really nitpicky, or the writers start bending credulity too hard because the setting they built wasn't built for what they're doing.
Another way of looking at it (frankly, probably more accurate IMO) is how much time a work or piece of media spends explaining and exploiting magical rules. TLDR: is this a piece of fiction about, or where the thrill comes from, someone munchkining the world around them? I tend to find that's the actual question at play most of the time. If this is a story about someone taking the world and telling it to feth off, then the world needs to be defined so that there's a catharsis when it gets told to screw off. If it's a story about something else, then those other things need to be defined. If we go maximum abstraction, a story's need to be 'hard' or 'soft' on anything is equal to what the story is about. A political thriller in an ill-defined political system is going to lack thrills. A fantasy story ultimately about the struggle of good and evil with a focus on human nature, virtues, and failings, only needs a magic system that's explained as much as is necessary to make sense of it. It's the human nature, virtues, and failings, and need the actual focus of the narrative because that's what the story is about.
The entire horror-movie-stalker scene that ends with obi-wan being dragged through fire to no lasting effect. No idea why that happened (beyond contradicting the New Hope implication that 'Vader is now the master' and now will win, having never done that before), and the entire sequence looked like crap (too dark, trivial obstacles and Vader looked too fake). As did the knock-off batman roof running on the Planet of Crushed Dreams.
And I think this is really tangential to the actual complaints about the Kenobi series which mostly fall under the drama is just kind of meh and the action scenes are underwrought (keep using over but I guess under is the better prefix for what's going on here).
And to be fair, that's basically all modern media these days. It has nothing to really do with hard/soft magic anything. The best scenes in Kenobi IMO are the ones about Kenobi and Leia. I think the ones about Kenobi and Reva or Kenobi and Anakin have been a rather hit/miss affair mostly due to the way those scenes have been structured. If they were good, I doubt anyone would complain nearly as much. But they're not good, so we do what we always do and bitch about how they suck and then amp it up to how they not only suck but ruin the continuity.
I'd point out that just because Kenobi got burned doesn't mean Vader thinks he won, but then again, I don't think Kenobi has done a good job characterizing Vader at all. It seems to just assume we get that he's angry without ever contextualizing what anger means to him or how his anger colors his perception of events (and to be fair, Vader didn't seem that angry in ANH, he seemed proud and dismissive, and I'm not sure if Kenobi is even trying to explain how that transition happened). And that's what I think is kind of lazy about it. The 'magic' has nothing to do with why it does/doesn't work here.
I.E. Kenobi is a story that is fundamentally about Kenobi and his tangle of relationships and loyalties, and the series has not defined those things very well except where Leia is concerned IMO. Because they were ill-defined, we're bored and finding other things to talk about (mostly negative). We could say the exact same thing happed to Book of Boba Fett, where Fett's motivations and goals were incredibly ill-defined and made the succession of action set pieces a slog because there was lacking context to give it thrills. As opposed to The Madalorian, which had a very easy to stake premise of 'save baby Yoda' and could always rely on that to provide some momentum for what was going on.
EDIT: A great example is in the 5th episode, when Kenobi's interaction with Reva is stilted and dull. An imparting of information that feels to completely lack gravitas or narrative weight. Then there's this whole dragged out scene with Tara just after it, and it's weird because Kenobi just met the woman and she's nice enough but you'd think the things he's talking about with Reva would carry a hell of a lot more weight to them. Even the successive flashback that happens throughout the episode, comes off lacking weight IMO. It's a great scene and a great concept wasted because the series as a whole didn't know where to put its emphasis.
Forcing choking the spaceship was cheesy CGI, and too easy.
You know now that I think of it I swear people had this exact reaction when Starkiller did the same thing in Force Unleashed. I completely forgot about that.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2022/06/18 17:21:52
I do remember Starkiller pulling the star destroyer out fo the sky and people being all WTF. Both in that it was awesome and that it was ridiculous in a way that broke their understanding of SW.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Dreadwinter wrote: Those systems existed and the difference between them was recognized long before Sanderson used it.
Loosely sure, but the basic premise of hard/soft magic extends now directly from Sanderson's Laws of Magic and discussion of it;
1. An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic.
2. Weaknesses, limits and costs are more interesting than powers.
3. The author should expand on what is already a part of the magic system before something entirely new is added, as this may otherwise entirely change how the magic system fits into the fictional world.
And it's mostly an extension that only exists in and around Sanderson's fanbase, something I learned fast when the Wikipedia article for Hard and Soft magic was deleted because Sanderson himself was the only source anyone could find discussing it that wasn't dismissive of the idea (the specific reason for the deletion was literally 'lack of notability' and Wikipedia's definition of notability is vast).
Most Fantasy/Sci-Fi writers use those terms now,
I feel very confident when I tell you no they don't. The term is far more popular in spaces talking about fantasy and sci-fi and constructed worlds than it is among writers. And Sanderson is atypical in how he approaches writing. I don't think most authors think about the nuts and bolts of what they do to nearly the degree Sanderson does.
It doesn't extend directly from Sanderson's Laws of Magic. The Laws of Magic more extend directly from the Soft/Hard magic system. The Laws of Magic are also more for his own writing and for use as a guideline for new writers that want a little more structure. Listening to his lectures, he made it as a tool to use and not laws that must be respected.
Again, it isn't something that only exists in Sanderson's fanbase. It is used as a classification system for Fantasy/Sci-Fi. You can just google it and see. Also, it probably got deleted off Wikipedia as a page because there isn't much to the idea. It is still on the "Magic System" Wikipedia, FYI.
I feel very confident when I tell you they do. It is very popular among writers/readers of the genre that I go to. Many of those spaces do have Sanderson fans, but not everyone who uses it is a Sanderson fan. Sanderson just has a lot of fans.
Voss wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by a 'soft magic system' (it doesn't line up with anything I've ever seen anyone else use the term for), and it certainly doesn't handwave away anything.
The Empire not being a 'galaxy spanning threat' is a 'so what?' statement. Everyone we've ever been introduced to lives in the part they do threaten.
Star Wars isn't hard Sci Fi. It's pulp fantasy adventure. Things happen because they fit the story being told today, or because they'll be visually impressive. If you're expecting more than that, you're doomed to eternal disappointment.
Ok, but what about the stuff that keeps happening that doesn't fit the story being told today and isn't visually impresive?
Soft Magic System is a well known identification of how magic systems work in fantasy settings. It means that the system does not have to have a defined set of rules. It certainly does hand wave things away, that is the point of a Soft Magic System. You cant say it doesn't do something when you don't even know what it is.
So 'soft magic' = any amount of bad writing and donkey-pulls around magic is fine. Gotcha.
The Empire doesn't threaten the whole galaxy. Less than half of the galaxy in Star Wars is explored or inhabited.
And people (specifically characters we care about on screen) don't go there. You're making a 'it wasn't a world war because no one fought on Antarctica' argument.
The Empire certainly does not roam around Hutt Space willy nilly, which is why they aren't dropping entire platoons on the planet to catch Obi-Wan. So context matters. You can't really 'so what?' that.
But... they did drop an entire platoon on the planet. They all lined up to shoot at the door.
There were also stormtroopers and Inquisitors all over Empty Quarry Planet, Evil City Planet and Tattooine itself.
No one runs off to hide in Hutt Space (successfully or otherwise) so it does not matter that the Empire can't roam around 'willy nilly' (according to you, anyway, in the films that doesn't even seem to be a thing characters are aware of).
Whatever hypothetical point you're trying to make here, its denied by the _fact_ that there are Imperials everywhere they go in the actual show.
What stuff is happening that doesn't fit the story being told today? What is not visually impressive?
The entire horror-movie-stalker scene that ends with obi-wan being dragged through fire to no lasting effect. No idea why that happened (beyond contradicting the New Hope implication that 'Vader is now the master' and will now win their duel, having never done that before), and the entire sequence looked like crap (too dark, trivial obstacles and Vader looked too fake). As did the knock-off batman roof running on the Planet of Crushed Dreams. Forcing choking the spaceship was cheesy CGI, and too easy.
Sure, Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were sham writers. What a take. You are clearly the expert we should listen to here.
Tatooine is one of those places that the Empire doesn't inhabit or control. They show up sometimes and local crime lords allow it. But they don't run the planet. Much like the street planet Obi-Wan goes to. They don't run that planet, they are just allowed there. Hence, the Clone in the street. You think on a planet they control, they would just let that happen?
There is no hypothetical point there. Just a point, that being that the Empire doesn't control everything in the Universe, which is a fact and has been a fact for the entirety of Star Wars. Some places, they are just allowed to be.
Oh lol, you are just being whining to whine at this point.
I'd also point out the essay literally describes how he came up with the terminology of hard and soft magic after 2005's Worldcon where no one agreed with his statement that magic should have rules. The literal phrases hard magic and soft magic weren't phrases you'd see used much until Sanderson came along (and I say that only because I can't prove definitively he invented them) and started his side-career in essays and lectures about speculative fiction. He's describing a dynamic that is older than him, but I don't think anyone was really doing that description until he came along and even if they were Sanderson is the one who popularized it.
You can just google it and see.
I can google flat Earth too. We can google anything. I can find fanart of obscure celebrities you've never heard of bouncing down a street on pogo sticks if I want to.
It is still on the "Magic System" Wikipedia, FYI.
It used to have its own article a few years ago (which is what I literally said). I was one of the people trying to save it. There just wasn't sourcing because this idea has not penetrated that far yet (it will eventually maybe, if only because Sanderson is going to inspire writers who will continue to popularize it). As a method for categorizing fantasy, it's just not something you're going to find very far from fan spaces and communities where Sanderson is a site-wide name.
Many of those spaces do have Sanderson fans
Case and point. To coin my own phrase, you're falling for a mirage of notability. How much people know what a soft/hard magic system on the internet is going to be directly proportional to the presence of Sanderson and his works in that space. Sanderson is prolific enough to have deeply penetrated fantasy and writing forums and boards, but step outside that wheelhouse and you're not going to see it get a lot of mileage right now. Even then, I'm in multiple writing discords for webnovels and serial fiction and maybe only a handful of the people in those channels know what this idea is. Most writers are too busy writing to toy with theory the way Sanderson does. Man's a damn writing machine we only see once a generation. The only comparable author living today IMO is Stephen King.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/06/19 00:43:17
