Ooooookay. Why is the term "Mary Sue" being thrown around like paint?

[s0denone]

But surely you will agree that "bad writing" exists, yes?

Please to define "bad". There is incomprehensible writing, but that hardly qualifies as writing at all. "Twilight" is popularly considered terribly written, but was wildly popular. Some people would struggle to get through a page of "Ulysses". I've had people on this website assure me George RR Martin is an incompetent hack, while he wins awards for his high quality work. It's subjective. 'Bad' is almost entirely in the eye of the beholder. Particularly when we're dealing with an unfinished work.

No character is objectively unenjoyable, uninteresting or otherwise unlikeable - but a character may be objectively poorly written, right?

You're welcome to make an argument in an attempt to support that, but I doubt you'll get much traction. Take a character like Superman. As bland and one dimensional as characters get, certainly at inception. One of the most enduring pop cultural sensations of the century. Is Mickey Mouse a bad character? He's no Walter White, but he's iconic. You have to consider what the goals of the character and the goals of the piece are. This is Star Wars. They're not writing Tony Soprano. A primary complaint issued at Rey is that she's overtly archetypal, and we've basically described virtually the entire fucking Star Wars film universe.

Star Wars? What? I am talking about issue with writing in general, not specifically Star Wars or indeed Rey, though I can see how you misunderstood that.

That fact that you would say that objectively "bad" writing doesn't exist makes this argument wholly pointless though. I would invite you to read what I edited into my previous post, which you seem to have missed:

Spoiler

I think that is actually one of the cornerstones of current feminist critique of media: That certain female characters are objectively poorly written in order to fill a stereotype or appeal to a section of the fanbase.

And to your point: Yes, Superman is absolutely a poorly written character (though later iterations have attempted to inject more depth)-- He is the archetypical child-fantasy wish-fullfillment. That doesn't make Superman bad, make Superman movies bad or ruin him as a character - but he is an amazingly boring character (at least original takes on him were) totally absent of any of the aforementioned depth.

I don't think Mickey Mouse is a bad character. Forgive me, I haven't been following anything he's been in since I was a child, but as I recall he had many arguments with his neighbours, many different plotlines, attempts at romance with Minnie Mouse etc. etc. There was a lot of meat on those child-friendly bones.

Rey from Star Wars is not an objectionably unlikely character, but the fact that she seems to have further wound up the "chosen one" mechanic we know from previous Star Wars movies makes her, in my opinion, boring and it is objectionably lazy writing to not just copy plotlines from earlier movies, but to make her almost totally infallible.

I don't give two shits if the main character is black, green, purple, white, male, female, transvestite, transsexual or whatever the fuck, as long as they are interesting and their plot is engaging. Star Wars the Force Awakens as a movie was exactly what I expected it to be. It wasn't overly disappointing or exhilarating. Rey was a boring, predictable character and her massive level of "power"(if you will) and her being like an in-built deus ex machina completely extinguished most of the tension otherwise present in those scenes.

And to round this back to your "Bad is in the eye of the beholder" argument, there isn't really much to say. If you think no such thing as "objectively bad" exists, you are being totally ridiculous. Movies and books that are objectively bad are written all the time, that doens't mean they are subjectively bad.

You can like a movie that is objectively a bad movie, that doesn't make it a good movie, it just means you like that particular type of schlock. That is totally fine. The same goes for books. The same goes for characters and how they are written. Me enjoying "Death Race" doesn't make Jason Statham less of an archetypical action movie bad ass (read: Gary Sue) nor does it make Death Race a good movie. Just like if I like "What's Her Number". It doesn't make the movie better, the characters more two-dimensional or anything. It just means I like that particular type of schlock.

There is a market for bad movies. They generate a profit. That doesn't make them "good" movies. That means there is a market for that brand of "bad".

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Concerning Proton Torpedoes, originally in the script he was supposed to hit the thing dead on rather than going over, but the director realized that wouldn't really work for the trench run scene, and so changed it so the Proton torpedoes worked more like conventional bombs, indeed, if you slow the frames in question down you see that the animation is a very rough parabolic arc. The targeting computer animation from the missed torpedoes also bears this theory out.

So does this theory also explain why the torpedoes just inherently know when they need to curve down because, and maybe this is just my ignorance of military technology shining through, I'm fairly certain that targeting computers are the sort of things that would be feeding such information to the projectile.

Heat seeking and they curve over the thermal vent because that's where it would see IR waves, as just one example.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I think that is actually one of the cornerstones of current feminist critique of media: That certain female characters are objectively poorly written in order to fill a stereotype or appeal to a section of the fanbase.

No, that makes them subjectively bad. One of the most persistent and pernicious misunderstandings I see on this website is that "tropes" are inherently wicked, as opposed to just commonly seen devices. Complaining one would like to see less of B and more of A is not saying B is intrinsically shit and A is intrinsically amazing, and anyone claiming otherwise is making an intellectually bankrupt argument.

I don't give two shits if the main character is black, green, purple, white, male, female, transvestite, transsexual or whatever the fuck, as long as they are interesting and their plot is engaging.

Yes I think you'll find most people want to watch interesting characters and enjoy engaging plots. Where they differ is in what kinds of characters they find interesting, and what kinds of plot they find engaging.

And to round this back to your "Bad is in the eye of the beholder" argument, there isn't really much to say. If you think no such thing as "objectively bad" exists, you are being totally ridiculous.

Yes, there is a totally ridiculous side to media criticism. It's the side that claims a piece of media can be objectively valuated. As in, you can take a piece of media, and claim it is a verifiable FACT that it's "Good". I realize there's a certain degree of intellectual insecurity inherent in holding opinions, and it's nice to think our point of view is supported by divine writ, but there is no conceivable metric by which we can determine whether or not something is "Good" or "Bad" from the perspective of media criticism.

 

[Zeraki]

The Death Star has it's own gravitational field? The thing is the size of a moon, and while not solid, is made of materials denser than rock.

That would explain why a torpedo would drop at some point, not why it dropped at the precise point it needed to and did drop.

I always saw it as Luke using the Force to guide the torpedoes into the shaft, which was why Obi-Wan told him to use the Force, because as we saw with the first failed attempt the targeting computer wasn't going to get the job done.

 

[s0denone]

Yes, there is a totally ridiculous side to media criticism. It's the side that claims a piece of media can be objectively valuated. As in, you can take a piece of media, and claim it is a verifiable FACT that it's "Good". I realize there's a certain degree of intellectual insecurity inherent in holding opinions, and it's nice to think our point of view is supported by divine writ, but there is no conceivable metric by which we can determine whether or not something is "Good" or "Bad" from the perspective of media criticism.

Something can be objectively bad without being subjectively bad and vice versa. Saying there is no way to gauge literary skill is frankly mindblowing.

I don't think my viewpoint is supported by" divine writ, but I take it as a fact that something like "Twilight" is objectively bad. Just like "Jack and Jill" is.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Something can be objectively bad without being subjectively bad and vice versa. Saying there is no way to gauge literary skill is frankly mindblowing.

I don't think my viewpoint is supported by" divine writ, but I take it as a fact that something like "Twilight" is objectively bad. Just like "Jack and Jill" is.

Even skill assessment, which is divorced from "quality" assessment (or universal qualification as "good" or "bad") is subject to bias in interpretation. History is riddled with boundary pushers and experimental artists who were ridiculed or dismissed for not confirming to the standards of the day for assessing "quality", and were later feted as visionary. It would take extraordinary arrogance for us to assume that media criticism has reached its apex, and that we know all there ever is to know of quality craftsmanship.

And even THAT is to say nothing of genre or the intent of a piece of media. I don't want or need escapist pulp fiction to be intellectually dense or rambling and philosophical. I doubt the people who did enjoy mass market frippery like Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey would have felt it was much improved were it rendered in Shakespearean prose or delivered in dry academic vigor. "Written better" is a fucking meaningless distinction when you're talking about entertainment media, the primary purpose of which is to entertain. Is a metric of quality not "How well something serves the purpose for which it was created"?

"By today's best understanding of "quality" writing, Moby Dick has superior prose to Harry Potter. Not that this will have any impact whatsoever on whether someone will actually enjoy reading it." What an exciting, high value argument.

 

[s0denone]

"By today's best understanding of "quality" writing, Moby Dick has superior prose to Harry Potter. Not that this will have any impact whatsoever on whether someone will actually enjoy reading it." What an exciting, high value argument.

Regardless of how boring you might find the argument; that is the crux of the matter. A character may well be poorly written without being unlikeable to certain people and vice versa.

Enjoy your evening.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Regardless of how boring you might find the argument; that is the crux of the matter. A character may well be poorly written without being unlikeable to certain people and vice versa.

It's not that I find it boring, it's that I find it to be useless, academic pedantry. It has absolutely no reflection whatsoever on value, and serves primarily as intellectual masturbation for people who want to assert their opinion as scientifically validated fact. If that strikes you as opprobrium, that's because it is. Conceptually, I find the idea of "objective" valuation in art and media to be risible.

In fact, I find it so preposterous that I'm going to have to presume we've experienced a fundamental breakdown in communication and I'm simply not understanding what you're trying to say. That, or you're winding me up.

Enjoy your evening.

I realize this was meant to be your "drop the mic" moment, but cheers, I'm sure I will.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

The Death Star has it's own gravitational field? The thing is the size of a moon, and while not solid, is made of materials denser than rock.

That would explain why a torpedo would drop at some point, not why it dropped at the precise point it needed to and did drop.

I always saw it as Luke using the Force to guide the torpedoes into the shaft, which was why Obi-Wan told him to use the Force, because as we saw with the first failed attempt the targeting computer wasn't going to get the job done.

Except that doesn't makes sense. That would mean that the entire plan to blow up the Death Star was a pointless endeavor from the word go. The whole point of it is that any of the pilots going at that thing could've made the shot.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

The Death Star has it's own gravitational field? The thing is the size of a moon, and while not solid, is made of materials denser than rock.

That would explain why a torpedo would drop at some point, not why it dropped at the precise point it needed to and did drop.

I always saw it as Luke using the Force to guide the torpedoes into the shaft, which was why Obi-Wan told him to use the Force, because as we saw with the first failed attempt the targeting computer wasn't going to get the job done.

Except that doesn't makes sense. That would mean that the entire plan to blow up the Death Star was a pointless endeavor from the word go. The whole point of it is that any of the pilots going at that thing could've made the shot.

Wasn't it still a difficult shot though? Like no bigger than a swamp rat?

Like thats why they launched everything they had at it, they were count on superior numbers that one of them would make the nailing shot.

 

[wizzy555]

It was a difficult shot, but I think the point was given enough time and attempts anyone would have got it, but the time limit and the imperial defences were the problem.

 

[Zeraki]

The Death Star has it's own gravitational field? The thing is the size of a moon, and while not solid, is made of materials denser than rock.

That would explain why a torpedo would drop at some point, not why it dropped at the precise point it needed to and did drop.

I always saw it as Luke using the Force to guide the torpedoes into the shaft, which was why Obi-Wan told him to use the Force, because as we saw with the first failed attempt the targeting computer wasn't going to get the job done.

Except that doesn't makes sense. That would mean that the entire plan to blow up the Death Star was a pointless endeavor from the word go. The whole point of it is that any of the pilots going at that thing could've made the shot.

The plan was basically running at the enemy with their arms flailing, it was an act of desperation with a very slim chance of success. The movie shows us that the targeting computer couldn't hit the target, so Luke had to rely on the Force to make that shot.

 

[DementedSheep]

The Death Star has it's own gravitational field? The thing is the size of a moon, and while not solid, is made of materials denser than rock.

That would explain why a torpedo would drop at some point, not why it dropped at the precise point it needed to and did drop.

I always saw it as Luke using the Force to guide the torpedoes into the shaft, which was why Obi-Wan told him to use the Force, because as we saw with the first failed attempt the targeting computer wasn't going to get the job done.

Except that doesn't makes sense. That would mean that the entire plan to blow up the Death Star was a pointless endeavor from the word go. The whole point of it is that any of the pilots going at that thing could've made the shot.

Even if a shot is very difficult, throw enough people at it and someone might get lucky. They didn't have a whole lot of other options to take the damn thing out. Luke however didn't get lucky, he "used the force" to make the shot.

 

[Jack Action]

The Death Star has it's own gravitational field? The thing is the size of a moon, and while not solid, is made of materials denser than rock.

That would explain why a torpedo would drop at some point, not why it dropped at the precise point it needed to and did drop.

I always saw it as Luke using the Force to guide the torpedoes into the shaft, which was why Obi-Wan told him to use the Force, because as we saw with the first failed attempt the targeting computer wasn't going to get the job done.

Except that doesn't makes sense. That would mean that the entire plan to blow up the Death Star was a pointless endeavor from the word go. The whole point of it is that any of the pilots going at that thing could've made the shot.

Even if a shot is very difficult, throw enough people at it and someone might get lucky. They didn't have a whole lot of other options to take the damn thing out. Luke however didn't get lucky, he "used the force" to make the shot.

...well they could've dive-bombed it instead of flying down a flak-lined trench. Just saying.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

The Death Star has it's own gravitational field? The thing is the size of a moon, and while not solid, is made of materials denser than rock.

That would explain why a torpedo would drop at some point, not why it dropped at the precise point it needed to and did drop.

I always saw it as Luke using the Force to guide the torpedoes into the shaft, which was why Obi-Wan told him to use the Force, because as we saw with the first failed attempt the targeting computer wasn't going to get the job done.

Except that doesn't makes sense. That would mean that the entire plan to blow up the Death Star was a pointless endeavor from the word go. The whole point of it is that any of the pilots going at that thing could've made the shot.

Even if a shot is very difficult, throw enough people at it and someone might get lucky. They didn't have a whole lot of other options to take the damn thing out. Luke however didn't get lucky, he "used the force" to make the shot.

...well they could've dive-bombed it instead of flying down a flak-lined trench. Just saying.

Apparently, if you pay enough attention during the mission explanation, there's a shield directly above the vent, necessitating the sideways shot.

Though I don't remember seeing it, I just read that was the case. Either way it's significantly less dramatic and we can't have that!

 

[Jack Action]

Apparently, if you pay enough attention during the mission explanation, there's a shield directly above the vent, necessitating the sideways shot.

Though I don't remember seeing it, I just read that was the case. Either way it's significantly less dramatic and we can't have that!

Nah, they said it's ray-shielded, so blasters can't get through; that's why they used torpedoes.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Apparently, if you pay enough attention during the mission explanation, there's a shield directly above the vent, necessitating the sideways shot.

Though I don't remember seeing it, I just read that was the case. Either way it's significantly less dramatic and we can't have that!

Nah, they said it's ray-shielded, so blasters can't get through; that's why they used torpedoes.

Well in either case, having an "exhaust port" at all is incredibly stupid on a space station anyway.

 

[renegade7]

The Death Star has it's own gravitational field? The thing is the size of a moon, and while not solid, is made of materials denser than rock.

That would explain why a torpedo would drop at some point, not why it dropped at the precise point it needed to and did drop.

Protons are positively charged, so the "torpedo" would need some kind of magnetic containment field to keep the projectile coherent. If the magnetic field containing the plasma in the Death Star's "core" was strong enough then the exhaust port could have acted like a waveguide for the field, which would have resulted in the torpedoes being pulled directly towards it and then down into the core.

This approach seems likely, it's not too much of a stretch to assume that a civilization that has developed FTL travel has a sound enough mastery of high energy physics to be able to intelligently ionize a dense gas of hydrogen just so that it would be paramagnetically [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramagnetism] attracted only to a field of a given frequency (that of the target). So in this case, the targeting computer would direct the firing mechanism to give the proton gas a paramagnetic moment that would be triggered only by the magnetic field from the Death Star's core, configured to induce a magnetic moment in the plasma that would cause it to be attracted to the core and to ignore other field sources. This would essentially get you a missile that would not require a guidance computer.

However, you would have to fire the torpedo more or less from an angle directly facing the exhaust opening since you would need to already be in the magnetic field in order for the paramagnetic moment to form.

 

[Jack Action]

The Death Star has it's own gravitational field? The thing is the size of a moon, and while not solid, is made of materials denser than rock.

That would explain why a torpedo would drop at some point, not why it dropped at the precise point it needed to and did drop.

Protons are positively charged, so the "torpedo" would need some kind of magnetic containment field to keep the projectile coherent. If the magnetic field containing the plasma in the Death Star's "core" was strong enough then the exhaust port could have acted like a waveguide for the field, which would have resulted in the torpedoes being pulled directly towards it and then down into the core.

This approach seems likely, it's not too much of a stretch to assume that a civilization that has developed FTL travel has a sound enough mastery of high energy physics to be able to intelligently ionize a dense gas of hydrogen just so that it would be paramagnetically [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramagnetism] attracted only to a field of a given frequency (that of the target). So in this case, the targeting computer would direct the firing mechanism to give the proton gas a paramagnetic moment that would be triggered only by the magnetic field from the Death Star's core, configured to induce a magnetic moment in the plasma that would cause it to be attracted to the core and to ignore other field sources. This would essentially get you a missile that would not require a guidance computer.

However, you would have to fire the torpedo more or less from an angle directly facing the exhaust opening since you would need to already be in the magnetic field in order for the paramagnetic moment to form.

Sorry to burst your magnetic containment bubble, but proton torpedoes are physical objects. [http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/6/6e/Protontorpedo-NEGWT.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080808110314] Name comes from the fact that they're miniature nukes, iirc.