Видео

That's one point of view, but if one cannot laugh at themselves, even with a high status, then what's the point in laughing at all?

@ScriptDoctor I get that and I think there is a time and place but if I was going to show this happening to the first lady I would make up a fictional one, I don't really find this tasteful to do to any real world person without their consent let alone a first lady

The plot point is Luke finally using the force for the first time. While visually it is a blink and you'll miss it moment, as I have shown in the video, both torpedoes are side by side as they approach the exhaust port, and then one unnaturally slows down so that the other can enter first, followed by the second torpedo. Remember, this is done without the aid of Luke's X-Wing computer targeting system. Luke is using the force to slow down one of the torpedoes to guide them into the exhaust port individually. This reinforces the set-up and the comment by Red Leader, who, after his run, remarked how the torpedoes impacted on the surface. Had Luke not listened to Obi-wan and used the computer his result would be the same as Red Leader, but instead, Luke used the force for the first time and successfully completed the trench run.

@@ScriptDoctor That's a clever interpretation, but of course it is a retcon and should be categorized as such - it's not described that way in drafts of the screenplay nor the original novelization.

@@matthewwade920 No it is not a retcon, it is described that way in the editing and with the FX team. Are you suggesting that when Obi-wan tells Luke to use the force, that he is not doing so when he turns off the computer and fires the torpedoes? Because that would be a retcon. In the original cut, Luke used the computer and failed to blow up the death star. He then went back into the trench, used the force and succeeded. Marcia Lucas felt that four trench runs in total was one too many and sticking with the rule of three combined both of Luke's trench runs into a single attempt. A novelization would not acknowledge such things because the novelization was completed before the final edit of the film. All novelizations are adaptations of the shooting screenplay, and the shooting script to Star Wars is not the same as the final cut. That is the case with most movie to novel adaptations.

You're misunderstanding the logic of super powers in Western culture. If a super hero could punch through a wall, but be just as vulnerable as a normal person they would then crush their fists. No matter how strong one's muscles get, the density of their bones remains the same. It's part of Newton's second law applied to the physics of super powers. So to address this, the logic is that the body is also strong enough to accommodate the powers as well. This creates a balance within their power set. In fact, in the examples you provided about decapitation with bare hands, but they too can be victims of such attacks, follows a similar logic step. But more often than not, this logic is superseded in Eastern story for the sake of fun. The rules the East use, while nonsense, are consistent within each story (or at least try to be as with Western stories), which allows us to suspend our disbelief and enjoy the adventure. A hero like Superman is vulnerable to someone of equal strength, like another Kryptonian, or another alien. A hero like Spider-man while immensely strong and durable, can be killed by average weapons, such as guns, knives, and bombs, and even poison. He's resilient, but not invulnerable. It is called a status level. On a powers level, normal people do not measure up with the superpowered hero physically (you see this in Japanese stories as well). But it doesn't prohibit the normal person from combating them intellectually. This creates new dynamics. Sometimes these are used in Eastern storytelling, but I found those instances to be rare in the more popular franchises (but then again, I have not perused all of Anime/Manga). What I find interesting is how you find suspense in the death of a character far more interesting than the character failing. I find that very interesting, because death and failure in a story are not always the same thing.

​@@ScriptDoctor I can certainly appreciate that logic and I would admit that there's an even greater absurdity in terms of physics and anatomy to the likes of Kenshiro than Superman. For me, it's mostly the way I respond emotionally in terms of suspense. Typically the times I'm cringing most in a Superman film is not when Superman is being hit so hard that a skyscraper collapses on him but when the very vulnerable Lois Lane is falling from a building and Superman has to save her in the nick of time, e.g. Or in the presence of Kryptonite as you mentioned, but I always found that rather contrived. As for death vs. failure, I do distinguish the two but often a lot of superhero fiction revolves heavily around fight scenes. Death and injury are often the main consequences I find worth fearing most in the context of combat if the writers give me a strong impression that there's a genuine risk for our protag to die or become severely crippled. That risk is something that seems generally absent in a lot of Western superhero comic books. Actually I got so excited as a boy and started to think Superman comics might actually be interesting when that issue came out (apologies for my vagueness; I only remember flipping through it in an comic book store around the late 80s or early 90s) where Superman dies. Then I was so extremely disappointed because a week later or so, I found a new issue where he was resurrected back from the dead. If we're instead talking about a film like Rocky, failure in that context is not necessarily that he dies or even gets injured or even loses to Apollo Creed, only fails to go the distance. I love such films that frame failure in more nuanced ways since that creates far more ways for things to go wrong and elevates the suspense for me.

​@@ScriptDoctorActually the most interesting aspect of the Superman story to me is not the story about Superman, but his disguise as Clark Kent and the inner conflict he has with his love of Lois Lane who is in love with Superman (a rather peculiar love triangle given that Superman and Clark are the same person). My personal tastes align with that conflict more than any fight scene involving Superman. I'm in the minority camp that actually fell asleep during Man of Steel's fight scenes in the movie theater and found it so dull despite the spectacular VFX. But for fight scenes in particular, my favorites have always been the ones where I was thoroughly convinced that my favorite characters could die because the writers killed off enough main characters to strongly convince me of the possibility. One of my all-time favorites is the attempted execution of Titus Pullo in Rome (TV series) in the gladiatorial arena; I was so convinced that I was about to witness the death of Pullo. Another is the scene in Game of Thrones between Red Viper and the Mountain where I was sure one of them was going to die and with the stakes elevated where, if the Red Viper lost, Tyrion would also be found guilty. I love fight scenes with those kinds of extremely high stakes and truly high risk of failure (established from the previous writing because the authors aren't at all shy to kill even a favorite character).

​@@darkengine5931 Your first mistake is thinking Clark Kent is the disguise. It isn't. Clark Kent is who he is, Superman is what he can do. He grew up as Clark Kent. Yes, he had powers, but he wasn't Superman. He created Superman. I don't blame you for being confused, a lot of crappy writers have viewed Superman through the lens you described because they weren't paying attention to the character, but rather the powers. Your comparisons from Superheroes to legendary Roman tales are not equal. Stories of mortals, vs. stories of superhero's or the supernatural are not the same. But they can still follow the same rules. The gimmick you seem to be missing is that your conflating Western heroes with omnipotence when they have never been depicted as such. The stakes are always there. It's up to the writer to convince you of their importance. But if an audience isn't willing to accept the stakes, be them good or bad, then they will always have a skewed perspective.

​@@darkengine5931 Your very criticism of Superman catching Lois was solved in 1978. It's not an easy catch as your eye is focused on the character, but if you watch the background in the famous scene, Superman is actually flying downward with Lois as he catches her. They slow to a stop, and they fly up. This was done because Richard Donner knew if Superman were to simply catch Lois, her body would explode the same way as if she were to hit the ground. These rules have been consistent since readers began asking questions. Superman has such precise control over his powers he can interact with Humans without harming them, even during a rescue. That's part of what makes him earn the title of Superman. As for the Death and Return of Superman. That story was a six month arch. So based on your story, you found those issues probably around the summer of 1993 (as he died in October of 1992). It was a gimmick brought on by trying to stay in synch with the new Lois & Clark Superman show. But that's another story for another time. Death and Injury are never main consequences in the way your describing. They are the cause to the main consequences. Think of it like this: A character dies, the world reacts. How they react is the consequence. A hero dies trying to stop a villain. The villain wins and enacts their plan. That plan IS the consequence. The reaction to that is a new hero must rise to the occasion. The question? The stakes? Can the new hero stop the villain who defeated the previous hero? It isn't about if the new hero will live or die, but it is centered around the actions of the antagonist. Can they achieve their goal? Those are actually consequences. Luke losing his hand to Darth Vader is not on the same level of him learning that Darth Vader is his father. More people discuss that scene barely even mentioning that Luke lost his hand in that fight, because that is not a consequence of the scene. The scene, and consequence is that he's been fighting his father this entire time. It poses the question: What can Luke do next? You can bring up Rocky (as I did with Star Wars), but as this is a video about Superhero fatigue, and your comments are regarding superheroes and their difference in story telling between Eastern and Western methods, then let's keep the discussion on that subject.

A minister? C’mon dude you know all this Jesus stuff is fake right? If you ever toured a children’s cancer ward & seen how horrific that is, you’d realize no god is watching over us.

No worries. There will be an edit, as I was checking patreon to read a patron comment RMB's live show triggered lol. Sorry for that, but enjoy the show!

They still could.

Thank you! It was such a fun discussion and I'm working on getting other writers across novels, comics, and movies on in the future.