|
At the risk of various things I am going to engage the discussion of the appeal of fan wikis and their complete lack of acknowledgement of anything diagetic. 25% serious answer: autism. Much more serious answer; these things are, more than anything else, compilations of canon rather than works. Getting particularly deep into any examination of canon is a recipe for disaster but; we latch onto this notion that there is an aspect of the works we enjoy that persists in the universe beyond the times we are actively participating in them. That aspect is basically a bunch of "facts", or probably "assertions" is a better term, about the world, characters, plot or, at a stretch, themes. These are separate from any consideration of how the story is told. So on the one hand you have Yoda, Yoda's appearance, Yoda's personality, what Yoda does in which film (chronological order optional), the rich history of Yoda's loving lightsaber form, the reason Yoda uses a short lightsaber instead of a long one even though considerations of weight and balance shouldn't apply to lightsabers, etc. And on the other hand you have Yoda's puppet (or CG model), Yoda's voice actor, how Yoda is framed in each shot, how they got a human interacting with a puppet/CG person, the reason someone decided he should be green instead of blue, etc etc. More bluntly, you've got the things that would persist if the film was rewritten, and the things that would persist if the film was remade (although in reality a remake would be paired with a rewrite. Actually, this is a pretty good example; when Star Wars was remade, they changed a bunch of stuff that was all basically cinematic (CG detail that availed itself of the improved technology of its time), and a few frames of a single scene such that one character shoots second where previously he shot first. One of these changes has an entire pile of wiki content written about it. The rest are only really grudgingly acknowledged.) Anyway, this is the distinction you danced around in the video; story versus storytelling. How the story is bought to something resembling life is mercurial, evolving, evocative, interpretive, often completely subjective, absolutely a product of the times, and ultimately fleeting because for the most part the method is not what sticks in your mind. That's the content, which is prescriptive, cumulative, orderable, sortable, operable; these are all things that nerds like, broadly. The other great bastion of the categorisation of everything, TVTropes, blurs these lines somewhat in its relentless march towards every single human notion having a snappy pun-based title; it does acknowledge some of the more well-known aspects of works that are definitively filmmaking, like certain shot compositions or long takes or colour balance, but only on quite a superficial level. The site has an absolute dearth of analysis of how any of this stuff is actually leveraged in any given work, but hey, they sure can list every single cut longer than thirty seconds they've ever seen, especially if Joss Whedon was involved. Eternal Sonata's Wiki would be a list of editors of Eternal Sonata's Wiki's Wiki.
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:This is well thought out. Yeah, pretty much. I don't really disagree with any of this, I just seem to have even less faith in Wikia Culture than you do. I think the cargo cult mentality of these endeavours was always inevitable, and they could never approach the subjects you'd like them to approach, simply because of the perspective they assume. That perspective is the objective one, of course, because nerds like logic and reason and facts, and the notion that I can say this work can be read this way, and you can say this work can be read the complete and mutually exclusive opposite way, and we can both be right is anathema. Their mission is not to interpret, but to document. Worse, it won't do simply to collect and collate all of this information about A New Hope, and also all this information about Empire, etc - we are going to write an encyclopedia of Star Wars, and each individual work in this series might take a different approach, or promote a different message, or invite a certain reading, or invoke a certain symbolism or - dare we even contemplate - be shaped by different minds, so none of that will fit. The canon is the only thing that really indisputably links these works (unless there's a retcon, lol). If you start allowing for this mood or this cinematic technique or that director's flair or the clear influence of that prevailing idea you eventually have to confront the notion that all of these things you're trying to link are linked only in name, and that won't do either. Philosophers muse over whether or not one can step in the same river twice; Wikia editors must have nightmares about whether or not you can really "continue" a piece of fiction once published. The more works you add to the canon, and the more mediums that form those works, the worse this gets, because if Star Wars comprises both books and films then how the hell can you assert that anything particular to filmmaking is a part of Star Wars? This thing that is a part of Star Wars can't be a part of Star Wars if it can't be a part of this other thing that's also a part of Star Wars. Illogical. Does not compute. Error. We can't let people pick and choose what parts of Star Wars they want to be talking about at any given moment! The whole idea that Star Wars as a whole can be catalogued is opposed to the cataloguing of any of those things, or any given reading of any given part of Star Wars that might take into account those things. If you want to collect all that, you want a discussion forum, not an encyclopedia (even one that anyone can edit). The Crying War Kids Wikia will tell you about the bombs that were shown, and about the crying kids that were shown, and about the war that was shown, but it could never tell you what it means to say you were "shown" any of these things, because once you start talking about that you have to get dangerously close to not talking about Crying War Kids anymore, and nobody who runs the Crying War Kids Wikia wants to not be talking about Crying War Kids. It has to be this way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
I cannot believe it was the two hour long cut-and-edited dive into the optional bullshit dungeon that finally sold me on this game's combat system.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Instant Grat posted:If you beat the game without finding this dungeon, and you decide to do Encore Mode, you don't get the last combat level Are JRPG designers just allergic to the notion of player-friendliness or
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
...........................................................
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2017 04:05
|
|