I saw THE CORE! [not completely OT]

[Khur]

I just saw the movie and I have to say that it's enjoyable. Regardless of any of the science (of which I know enough about to get into trouble), the acting is great and the action is great. Despite all the cliches (so many the movie has to be making fun of them), the character interaction is strong and the movie has real emotional impact at moments.

Worth my time, at least.

 

[Umbran]

I think it's pretty safe to indicate that a group enjoys an in-joke without implying that everyone in the group enjoys it or that those who don't know the joke are somehow no longer members of the group. I think you may be putting too much importance on your association with a group, or more likely trying too hard to make the joke a bad idea. Relax, it's not a big deal.

*shrug*. The joke is no longer the issue. I said some time ago that since I hadn't seen the movie, I didn't know the full context, and thus I knew that I couldn't question it too much.

I was more just giving you a rough time over what seemed to be a fairly unsupported statement about "more general sci-fi circles". In retrospect, it was a poor tactic on my part. But I was still waking up. Pardon me for a poor choice. Let me be more plain...

The thing that bugs me is this - you make a claim of knowing something about "more general sci-fi circles". That's a pretty big statement, and I'd like to know what support you've got for it.

If you wish, think of me as being a stickler for being intellectually sound and precise. As I mentioned, we try around here not to over-generalize or make sweeping statements about the gaming community as a whole, 'cause it's a couple million people, and mostly none of us have contact with a large enough sample of the whole to say much meaningful beyond the anecdotal "IME". Given that "general sci-fi circles" is an even larger group, it would take even more to say much meaningful about them.

You're welcome to think I'm being over-picky. I just think I'm asking you to think for a second about what you say, and make sure you've got it right. If you're in a position to really know something about sci-fi readers as a whole, I'll shut up. Heck, if you can point to a major sci-fi work written before The Core that uses the joke, I'll shut up.

[edit - correcting a spelling error that bugged me]

 

[Mark]

Given that "general sci-fi circles" is an even larger group..

It's not an even larger group. It's many small groups (circles). The ones he travels in apparently are familiar with the joke: The ones in which you travel apparently are not. You keep saying "We" and he keeps saying "I" but you also keep taking his "I" for "We", I think...or can I now say "We" think?

 

[jonrog1]

You're welcome to think I'm being over-picky. I just think I'm asking you to think for a second about what you say, and make sure you've got it right. If you're in a position to really know something about sci-fi readers as a whole, I'll shut up. Heck, if you can point to a major sci-fi work written before The Core that uses the joke, I'll shut up.

[edit - correcting a spelling error that bugged me]

I think he was making the point that wider general circles other than just sci-fi would get the joke. He may have mispoke when he said "general sci-fi circles" but as that's a subset of "general circles", I don't think his statement's off. We got a physicist, some biotech guys, and a frikkin' improv guy. Improv. The bastard child of sketch comedy. [" A spatula, a gynecologist, and a bathroom." (speaking of inside jokes...)] That kind of supports his opinion.

My proposition was that you don't have to know anything about science to get the joke. The source of it is science geekdom. Extra laugh for those who get it. Solid laugh for those who don't know the source, but figure out the nature of the word in context, and hence the joke.

Been writing comedy 12 damn years. Nothing a decade of telling jokes in bars'll teach you better than to write a jargon joke. The joke actually FAILS if it's only a joke sci-fi guys would get.

Nobody was saying you lost your membership to anything, and nobody made an exclusionary comment. You went from zero to snarky in 6 flat there, mate. And, may I remind you, you were the one implying that as you hadn't heard the term, it was excessively "jargon"-ish and so an invalid joke. You made assumptions about the general based on the specific.

And stop *shrug*-ging. It's passive aggressive.

 

[WizarDru]

In retrospect, it was a poor tactic on my part. But I was still waking up.

On the wrong side of the bed, apparently. What jonrog1 said.

 

[Umbran]

Okay, it looks to me like the best approach to this is to take things a bit out of order.

. You went from zero to snarky in 6 flat there, mate.
[...snip...]
And stop *shrug*-ging. It's passive aggressive.

Well, to start with, where I come from "*shrug*" is not passive aggressive. It's a variant of "IMHO". Since when is that passive aggressive?

Yes, I went froom zero to snarky in 6 flat. And I already publicly announced that I realize that wasn't a good thing to do, and asked for pardon. Continuing to bring it up doesn't really count as pardon. What more do you want?

I think he was making the point that wider general circles other than just sci-fi would get the joke. He may have mispoke when he said "general sci-fi circles" but as that's a subset of "general circles", I don't think his statement's off.

If he misspoke, I'm perfectly happy to drop the whole thing.

However, I just don't agree with either your assessment, or Mark's. But, I don't see as our chewing it over relentlessly is gonna get us anywhere.

My proposition was that you don't have to know anything about science to get the joke.

And, as you'll note, I already ceeded some time ago that this may be the case. I noted that it really depends upon context, how it was presented, and that I didn't have that information.

When I brought up the question of jargon-dependance, I saw a lot more of folks defending it on the basis of knowing the jargon, rather than on it being funny without. Small sample, of course.

Been writing comedy 12 damn years. Nothing a decade of telling jokes in bars'll teach you better than to write a jargon joke. The joke actually FAILS if it's only a joke sci-fi guys would get.

I would have figured that there's one thing a decade of telling jokes in bars will teach you better - that they aren't all gems.

The reviewers failed to get it, and were dubbed "humorless". Folks are sometimes a bit antagonistic towards less-than-complementary critics or reviews, and the comment sounded rather... dismissive ("No, it can't be my joke, it must be that they're humorless"). My original intent was to see if it was the antagonism talking or not.

 

[Gizzard]

She spoke of the development meeting where the movie execs were willing to greenlight the screenplay but wanted it "reworked as a film for Tom Cruise". The writer explained how the fact that the Secret Service agent had been present during the Kennedy Assassination was too critical to the plot to be re-written.

The screenwriters from the most recent version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" gave a talk at a con about their experiences with the Hollywood development guys. One of the recurring things that happened to them is that they'd go into meetings and the execs would talk about how they "loved the property" and expected great things from it. Then they'd talk about the screenplay for a bit and then suggest that it could be "pumped up" if there was a final, climactic battle with the Alien Queen. The screenwriters would then explain that the Body Snatchers were a metaphor for conformity and that inserting an Alien Queen changes the whole meaning of the film. "Ok, ok, we get it," say the executives. Until the next meeting, where the Alien Queen discussion is back on the table.

Overall, they said they had 7 salient points that they wanted to transfer from the book to the movie and that, in the end, they got 3. And if you didnt like the film they made, you should just imagine it with an Alien Pod Queen. ;-)

 

[pennywiz]

jonrog1 - I am looking forward to your treatment of the Thieves World novels. Will they be done as short vinnettes (as per Twilight Zone) or interspersed as several plots woven into one full made-for-tv-movie? Although it seems like writing for television after having written for the big screen is sort of a step backwards. Was the money just too good to pass up?

 

[Piratecat]

And now, so to stop any tendency towards bickering -

Hey look! An evil panda bear!

 

[Victim]

I've seen unobtainium on super hero gaming boards too.

What's the book version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Heinlein's (spelling?) Puppet Masters?