Jump to content

More Shadow Force news

1st Border Red Devil
 Share

Recommended Posts

danth Pineapple Eater

danth

Posted
Posted
Heck my gf doesn't mind having her face between two breasts every now-and-then either and the entertainment of that is far superior!

I was going to go tit-for-tat with 1st Border again but now I see he is clearly insane and there's no point. 

338371[/snapback]

Okay, that was an awesome segue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sundown Bridge Bunny

Sundown

Posted
Posted

Okay, I'd better define "author's intent" for myself before I get into more trouble. I define intent as the collective intent of the entire creative staff-- they might have differences amongst them that lead to outright contradictions in the final work-- but what is the intent they seem to largely agree on at the time of creation? Images and dialogue suggest themes and things. They are not just words and pictures we can pick apart, use and misuse, for our own ends.

Of course what I think the "intent" is is largely understood by what the creators choose to show (and don't show) me in the first place. So maybe "apparent intent" is a better word. "Apparent intent" is what seems to be the apparent message when watched or viewed in context of the author's culture, message, and with a good helping of common sense.

This might seem a circular definition-- intent is based on what we see and hear, and the meaning of what we see and hear is based on intent-- and in some degree, it is. But it is circular only when an author or creator is a poor communicator or we're a poor audience. A poor communicator can't say what he means. A poor audience is apt to reinterpret things as they please and use the words and pictures of a fiction in ways they weren't meant to be used.

But an astute audience strives to understand the thoughts of a creator and seek intent in the creation. And a creator gives the audience enough to go on if they pay attention. When we are both doing our jobs perfectly, what we see and understand and what he intends are no longer circular. They are one and the same.

If what we see happens to differ from what's in an author or authors' mind, then we have to conclude that that parts of the production are just screwed up. If the intent then causes them to make derivative works that take the artistry out of the original work, then we can no longer trust the authors with their own creation. No contrived rules of interpretation will fix this schism. The only thing such rules will fix is the little fictional reality we want to live in, at the cost of much of the artistry that made the fictional reality appealing in the first place.

So am I arguing that we should interpret by TV images and dialogue alone, since this seems to be the case with Robotech? I'll get to that...

Ultimately, holding storytellers to some rule that forces them to either show visually or explain through dialogue everything that did or didn't happen is to hold them to an artificial constraint that they never held themselves to.

Within limits of reason, of course. The aforementioned Scott never taking a dump in his life is an example.

The problem is that what's "within reason" seems to vary depending on the person concerned. For example, I would argue that it's unreasonable to count the ships vaporized in a frame and conclude that the rest survived, when more damage out of frame seems to be implied (by the nature of the destruction, by the notable absence of a shot showing survivors, and by the expectations of retribution for those who just tried to destroy Earth) -- because it's simply bad storytelling to expect a viewer to do so.

What's ultimately important is the intent of a creator, what we think the storyteller is trying to imply

Except where 'intent' is changed afterwards. There are limits to 'author's intent'.

Sure, but there are also limits to how much an intent can be changed, and who can validly change them. Intent being changed 20 years after the fact when the scene worked fine before doesn't smell valid to me... especially change forced by a sequel that's no longer under the creative direction of the majority of the original staff.

If sequels force a reinterpretation of the scene, but in fact removes much of the meaning in the scene, or causes it to be a show of poor storytelling, then we must question the worthiness of the sequel rather than trying to force fit the original into the sequel's continuity at the expense of the original's artistry. Sometimes a balance can be made, and a little of the original's artistry can be sacrificed if the sequel offers something more in return. At other times, it just shows that the people involved in creation don't have their act together at all.

For those reasons, I prefer to interpret with an eye on the original apparent intent of the author or authors at the time, and what the original work seemed to show. I do this with SDF in light of Macross 7 and I do this with the original Star Wars films in light of the new ones. Instead of trying to cobble together some fictional reality that I can live in, I simply conclude that some people need to be smacked for their questionable changes in tastes and aesthetics, especially when they force their masterpieces to be reinterpreted. This is why I have serious issues with the latter in both franchises.

At any rate, the scene in question (ships, Regis, Boom!) doesn't pose problems if we interpret the image as suggesting much/most/all of the fleet was destroyed. The impression and intention we get as viewers, by the imagery shown and dialogue spoken, is that the fleet suffered heavy losses and the Regis is powerful.

The only thing this conclusion violates is the silly principle that we can only make conclusions based on what we see on screen.

Case in point: Macek wrote in The Sentinels that Major Carpenter's ship was a brand new prototype. That conflicts with not only dialogue, stated by the XO of the ship that its been their home for 15 yrs, but also visuals that show an exact replica of said ship waiting for liftoff 13 episodes later.

Another case in point: Macek claimed after Robotech had aired that the SDF-1 & SDF-2 were the only ships in the UEF arsenal until the SDF-3 was built. That, again, violates several visual cues in the series that show not only is the UEF building the next generation of warships (we see the remains of an Ardennes-class Battlecruiser and a Pegasus-class Assault Shuttle in eps. #31 Khyron's Revenge) but we also see numerous ships of Breetai's 1 million plus warship fleet being used by the UEF.

Okay, what you're describing isn't how "author's intent" is an unworkable principle. You're actually describing how screwed up Robotech's continuity is (at least when its sequels are factored in), and because it's so screwed up, we're forced to choose either one or the other-- what we see, or what we think one author of many intended.

But using artificial constructs to interpret screwed up storytelling in order to arrive at an agreeable continuity isn't really an enterprise that I think is worthy of our efforts in the first place. Keeping the details straight wasn't a goal worthy of the original authors, so why should we care so much? I think on some level we're just doomed to fail. And some gaffs are meant to be ignored, if we're going insist on enjoying that work of fiction.

By your definition, the TV series doesn't matter, it only matters what Macek thought!

I never made that argument explicitly, although I probably should have clarified. My real stance on the issue is that nothing really matters, because the authors seem unskilled at keeping together a coherent continuity-- and using the TV series as a guide is probably your best bet, so I would agree that the TV series and what's actually shown and said in most cases override one author's (Macek's) intent, or at least suggests a collaborative intent by several authors (Macek along with the rest of the staff). In this case, I would consider Macek's "intent" those undeveloped ideas that he never let go of, even when the rest of production had already agreed to do so or struck out in a different direction.

The exception I take to that is when the imagery conflicts with the author's intent in some minor, obscure way that is unknown to the author, most audiences, most of the production crew, and most anyone who is involved in determining what an image or line of dialogue says or means. If a few internet geeks in their quest to make fiction real assert that Endor was destroyed because an explosion of something as big as a death star above Endor's moon would have been cataclysmic to the sanctuary moon's ecosystem-- I remain dubious until Lucas says so one way or another, even if their math works out, and even if the imagery clearly shows one thing or another that would lead to their inescapable conclusion.

And lastly, author's intent does override fan speculation and interpretation in matters that are not conclusive-- including their reconstructions made by adhereing to the artificial rules of interpretation they've given themselves. Using the TV series as the measuring stick is a tool. A helpful one in such a convoluted continuity as Robotech. But sometimes a fan needs to get their head up and realize that that tool isn't needed everywhere, and there are safe places to put away that tool and use artistry and common sense as a guide.

For what it's worth, I actually like Robotech. But I've long since given up on making it live as a cohesive rational whole in my head.

Sorta what I was saying. Except people actually still listen to Sundown.

We'll see how long that lasts after this post.

-Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jenius Super Dimension Member

jenius

Posted
Posted (edited)

JBO, what the heck is that? Do you have the ability to put whatever you want in that dialogue box? I have all sorts of evil thoughts running through my head.

Sundown, don't waste your breath (or uh... finger muscle energy in this case?). He's just gonna come back with some crazy talk about God endowing him with the right to determine how everything in this world should be interpreted and that you're a moron for thinking otherwise. It sounds like you may have taken some literary classes in your time. Big Derrida fan? Can we deconstruct Robotech? Oh man, would we also have to deconstruct Macross, Southern Cross, and MOSPEADA if we did that? Crap, is Robotech new art in the same way as Kathy Acker's "adaptation" of Great Expectations??

Edited by jenius
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JB0 Super Dimension Member

JB0

Posted
Posted (edited)
JBO, what the heck is that? 

A semi-homage to a strange GBA/DS courtroom drama game.

DS version's got a US release as "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney."

Do you have the ability to put whatever you want in that dialogue box? 

Yes. My awesome powers of mind control let me manipulate your perception of the words in the box.

...

But sometimes I just cheat and use the form.

http://www.reset931.net/saiban/

The first 3 links above the guy let you pick a lawyer to object with. The 4th is an ad.

I have all sorts of evil thoughts running through my head.

Unleash the evil. We could use a new sith lord.

Cool!

338455[/snapback]

HAHA!

Edited by JB0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith Super Dimension Member

Keith

Posted
Posted
Don't blame me if you can't put 2 & 2 together :)

338147[/snapback]

Well, when I do that, I get 4. When you do it, you get 268.2 and then assert boldy that it's really the only reasonable conclusion. ;)

338250[/snapback]

No, I just pay attention, instead of bitching whenver something happens that I don't like.

Don't hate the playa', hate the game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twoducks New Edwards Test Pilot

Twoducks

Posted
Posted
JBO, what the heck is that? 

A semi-homage to a strange GBA/DS courtroom drama game.

DS version's got a US release as "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney."

Do you have the ability to put whatever you want in that dialogue box? 

Yes. My awesome powers of mind control let me manipulate your perception of the words in the box.

...

But sometimes I just cheat and use the form.

http://www.reset931.net/saiban/

The first 3 links above the guy let you pick a lawyer to object with. The 4th is an ad.

I have all sorts of evil thoughts running through my head.

Unleash the evil. We could use a new sith lord.

Cool!

338455[/snapback]

HAHA!

338456[/snapback]

mmh... this might become a trend

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zor Primus Global's Pipe Holder

Zor Primus

Posted
Posted (edited)
UEF Home Fleet during the 2nd Robotech War:

2 Tokugawa-class Super Carriers (carries 1000 fighters each)

29 Tristar-class Cruiser Leaders (carries 220 fighters each)

104 Ardennes-class Heavy Cruisers (carries 75 fighters each)

208 Nelson-class Destroyers* (carries 45 fighters each)

15 Pegasus-class Assault Shuttles (carries 6 fighters each)

Grand total minimum: 25,930

UEEF Fleet during the 3rd Robotech War

SDF-4 Izumo (carries 3120 fighters)

22 Ikazuchi-class Troop Cruisers (carries 584 fighters each)**

2 IZUM-Series Logistics Ships (carries 96 fighters each)

77 Garfish-class Light Cruisers (carries 15 fighters each)

144 Horizon-class Troop Shuttles* (carries 2 fighters each)

Grand total minimum: 17,603

338183[/snapback]

Can someone explain to me where he got all these numbers from? Thats the one thing I have yet to figure out...its like the Robotech Reference Guide...really neat to see peeps use their imagination in solidifying some reality to the ships seen in the anime, but if its never really mentioned in the animation or shown to be so precise how can you make an arguement that this is even close to accurate? You make a point of saying what you see and hear in see in the show is "canon" yet this "fleet capacity" or whatever is not entirely shown or even mentioned. I wonder, do Macross fans argue how many Valkyries fought against the Zentran main fleet like this? :rolleyes:

Edited by Zor Primus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...