Unpopular opinions go here

[RoughCoronet0]

I don't think Star Wars is all that great. Only part of the franchise I ever remotely enjoyed was the Kotor games and even then I'm more convinced it was due to the style of game than much to do with the franchise.

 

[Celebrim]

Eh, by 1956 there were already westerns that had depicted Native Americans with some degree of respect and sympathy. i.e. It wasn't anything novel like it was in 1948 with Forth Apache. At any rate, The Searchers might have examined racism, but it didn't deconstruct the western genre as a whole like The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance did. Nor was High Noon a deconstruction of the western, it was a take on McCarthyism using the old west as a backdrop.

High Noon is 1952. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is 1962.

Seems a mite early to be considered deconstruction, both because what are they deconstructing that early on and the philosophies around deconstruction don't even really get going until like 1967.

I am going to quibble. Having a twist on conventions or making commentary on something doesn't make the movie deconstruction. Sure, a move like 'Little Big Man' with its deliberate cynicism, descent into absurdity, and its (quite proper in this case) inversion of heroes is something like deconstruction. But even that is somewhat dubious, as it might just be better to say it is parody.

But 'The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance' isn't so much deconstruction (because the man who actually shot Liberty Valance is anything but) but rather an extension of the Western Heroic myth to suggest that there was more than one sort of courage and the closing of the lawless period that we think of as The West isn't a bad thing. But of course, for all the romanticism of that lawless period, no one really ever said it was a bad thing for it to end. The fast fading of that period was always part of The Western mythos. The hero always fades into the sunset literally or figuratively in a classic Western.

John Wayne wins an Oscar for True Grit in 1969. It's a tremendous film, but unlike the equally excellent 2010 version of the film, it's not a deconstruction. And even then, I'm not entirely sure that it is correct to call the 2010 version a deconstruction of anything, so much as it engaging with the text at a grittier level and focusing on the horrific nature of violence in a much franker way than the 1969 version could have.

'Rio Bravo' is an excellent movie, and it's in a dialogue about what counts as virtue in civilization with the equally excellent 'High Noon', but it's not a deconstruction of 'High Noon' nor is 'High Noon' a deconstruction of something else. The protagonist of 'High Noon' is a consummate romantic Western hero.

'Shane' is 1953. The extremely watchable 'Big Jake' in 1973 is not deconstruction, not even particularly cynical, and is a highly entertaining movie. So also is 'The Cowboys' in 1972.

In short, if the movie is about something it doesn't make it a deconstruction. If the movie is wistful or in some way self-critical or self-conscious about it's own violence, that doesn't make it a deconstruction. That's always been a part of the classic Western. Heroes in Western tradition are supposed to be reluctant to engage in violence and quick to repudiate what they do - the way Faramir does in the text of 'The Lord of the Rings' (surely not therefore a deconstruction of fantasy). And a movie can be critical of an era or a take on history without deconstructing the genre. It's just in a conversation about who we are and what we are to think. Most of all, if the movie has a twist and subverts expectations in some way, well that's just being writerly - that's not deconstruction.

Deconstruction is a slippery term, but as I understand it to be a deconstruction the text has to attack the text itself, otherwise it is just a critique.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Counterpoint, Eyes of Nine Edition:

6) Eberron pulled it off.

#6 on my list was "Victorian", and that's not a concept in Eberron - so I only quibble on that point

 

[Jd Smith1]

Maybe. But a good GM doesn't need the setting detail to creqte compelling play in the first place. Setting detail is mostly about failed novelism.

A good GM makes good use of everything. Setting detail is an extremely useful tool that ensures that prep time is better focused on adding depth to a campaign, especially if you're planning on 50-70 weekly sessions.

If you cranking off just a couple sessions, sure, you don't need detail. You're not going to get any meaningful development of PCs or the group anyway.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

But I'm not going to quibble too much about what does and doesn't count as a deconstruction. If the only good westerns are ones that deconstruct the genre, I don't know what do say. SOme people just don't like westerns and that's okay.

I've reconsidered on Tombstone and a few of the others being deconstructions. Tombstone played it pretty straight, although its contemporaries of Wyatt Earp and (ugh) Dances with Wolves tried to be commentaries. And I will slap leather with anyone who says that Tombstone wasn't a good movie.

 

[payn]

Starship Troopers was an awful novel, and Verhoeven was able to make a good parody out of it.

 

[Reynard]

A good GM makes good use of everything. Setting detail is an extremely useful tool that ensures that prep time is better focused on adding depth to a campaign, especially if you're planning on 50-70 weekly sessions.

If you cranking off just a couple sessions, sure, you don't need detail. You're not going to get any meaningful development of PCs or the group anyway.

I don't think that kind of detail is the responsibility of the GM, either. Players are just as capable of adding depth to the world if that's what the group is after.

My thesis is simply that it isn't important. You certainly can have interesting, complex characters in compelling situations over the long term without the sort of granular deep dive world building we're talking about.

 

[DammitVictor]

Starship Troopers was an awful novel, and Verhoeven was able to make a good parody out of it.

I wholeheartedly agree with one of these statements.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I don't think that kind of detail is the responsibility of the GM, either. Players are just as capable of adding depth to the world if that's what the group is after.

My thesis is simply that it isn't important. You certainly can have interesting, complex characters in compelling situations over the long term without the sort of granular deep dive world building we're talking about.

You can, but the odds are against it. You can pan for gold with a tea saucer and find color, but using the proper equipment drastically improves your odds.

Trouble is, well-detailed settings are so uncommon that few GMs and players are even aware of the possibilities.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Starship Troopers was an awful novel, and Verhoeven was able to make a good parody out of it.

Any bit of comedy that employs satire, irony, or sarcasm in a proper and correct fashion requires that some portion of the audience be confused (or even hurt) by the comedy.

Ambiguity is not a bug, but the central feature of any type comedy that plays with or invokes satire and irony. Simply put, the possibility that a reader can misunderstand the message is necessary to the proper conveyance of the message.

This ambiguity is not a bug - it is the distinguishing feature.