I have no idea why there is such a giant bias against in depth worldbuilding. This even applies to things like Midichlorians or remnant in FNAF.
Explanations and "exposition dumps" are not devoid of "themes, character, tone, ideas". Quite the opposite; the setting explained within the story can enrich it by introducing additional context or nuance to the story.
""Worldbuilding"" and ""frivolous detailing"" has been a part of literary fiction since time immemorial. Ever read the Odyssey?
>Writers make stories, not worlds
Insofar as perception is concerned, what is the difference? A story is a certain narrative describing the world as it appears. There is not only no dichotomy here but I'd go as far as to say that it'd be difficult to make a story without making some kind of "world".
It's all one giant appeal to moronation along with wanting stories to be simpler and stupider.
bot thread
Once you get established you get lazy.
Isn't remnant hated because it's basically Scott's way of trying to Pseudo-sci fi what was objectively a supernatural horror story?
Other horror stuff have done a similar lore but left it more open as to whether or not it's genuinely a ghost or some unholy entity taking the form of the dead as a means of fricking with people. Blair Witch and Ju-On off the top of my head
FNAF already had Sci-fi elements in it from the beginning. The animatronics in the first game as they're presented are impossible in that time period and even in today's time.
Yeah, but you don't sci-fi the ghosts/the curse. You leave the supernatural elements supernatural to let them feel like an invading force, something above us that will always be above us no matter how much we advance, disrupting the comfort we've found in the technology of the modern era. That is some basic shit we found out by the 2000s.
Remnant fails as a sci-fi horror concept because its not something found of our own arrogance nor is it something that plays like an unknown anymore. Afton's whole motivation outs it as something we can control. This is why they introduced the Mimic, a rogue AI whose evil comes from copying us as people after seeing the depths of how horrible we can be, which works objectively better as a sci-fi horror concept
>Yeah, but you don't sci-fi the ghosts/the curse. You leave the supernatural elements supernatural to let them feel like an invading force, something above us that will always be above us no matter how much we advance, disrupting the comfort we've found in the technology of the modern era. That is some basic shit we found out by the 2000s.
Because you say so or because you have actual evidence/experience to make this claim?
Oh, I'm sorry Lord High Commander of All Storytelling, I didn't recognize you behind your seventeen firewalls.
My evidence is that remnant isn't fricking scary
Scott is making up all this shit as he goes along, I guarantee it.
I don't understand how remnant sci-fis it. It's basically soul juice, like the goop from Puppet Master
There is a distinction.
Many fantasy works function very well with an air of mystery or magic around the less realistic aspects, as a natural phenomenon in that world. It needs no more explanation than in this world you are now seeing, things work differently, other rules are in play.
When someone develops a character they may want to flesh it and it's setting out by specifically stating these differences between the fantasy world and this one. This allows the audience to have a deeper understanding of the setting and by extension the character, may be even anticipate or infer future stories or events within them, the world building can foreshadow many things as it draws parallels with real life cultures for example.
Now, when someone decides to write Spiderman and decides that his wall sticking needs to be explained, it's low level telekinesis, he decides to return that EVERY power Spidey gas is actually tk, precog or telepathy, 7 more spider people with mental abilities show up, etc....we don't need this. It adds nothing. It doesn't show more of who Peter is, it doesn't take him anywhere in his life. Specially when some magical long haired old man comes in and explains it all to Peter half way through. Whether it's tk, little hairs that come out of his palms or molecular bonding, how Spidey sticks to walls isn't what will make a story great.
Details are not necessarily meaning.
Comic writers are not good writers, and haven't been for decades. The talent left the industry ages ago, the only ones that are left are the people too proud, or too desperate, to leave. Comic fans can project whatever cool headcanon they want onto something thats only vague and mythological, but once an explanation is provided that magic shortcut is lost. And, because comic writers are hacks, the explanations they do provide tend to be pretty shitty and nonsensical and otherwise inferior to just leaving the mystery unexplained.
At the same time, comic need to be constantly providing shakeups and the illusion of progressing the status quo, so murdering the mysteries left behind by better writers is a cheap and easy way to make their slop seem special and innovative. We've revealed the secret true history of the Joker, again! For real this time! Promise! Please buy our books, I'm begging you...
So fans have been soured on such 'worldbuilding' reveals, because while they should be fine when done competently no one can remember the last time it was done in comics by someone who wasn't pulling shit out of their ass.
Meanwhile, writers like Morrison use this same thing to obfuscate the fact that they don't want to write consistent characters in a coherent world because thats harder than making up bullshit that fits the story you want to tell at that exact moment. Yes, I wrote Green Lantern flying through the heart of a star unscathed 2 issues ago, but I need him to get knocked out and tied to a chair TODAY so a good bonk on the back of the head with a lead pipe from a normal street tough does the trick because I fricking said so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda#Character_overview
>George Lucas opted to have many details of the (Yoda's) life history remain unknown.
I think this so succinctly shows the power of writing, and how it's subjective. It's not just "people have bias against worldbuilding". It's the fine details of presentation and writing. It's the relation of author and audience, and our own unique views on deciding what is important, or how well it was said. It's the ability to decide what goes. I love art, and I love the power of subjectivity.
I don't have a prejudice against world building or lore. The problem is improper setup and payoff.
More often than not, lore is just withholding information that should have been presented early on solely to create mystery. It's contrived.
World building through exposition often means that the story or visuals do not give enough information organically. If those pieces of the world are not self-evident without a lecture, they're probably just not important, or the storyteller is not creative enough to construct scenes with them.
When world building is done well, you shouldn't even notice it.
>concern trolling
https://desuarchive.org/_/search/image/iwon-6Hk7mUIRu_DhDYkvA/
It's more than 6 times that this thread has been posted. Probably closer to 20 or 30.
>Who pumps the Batmobile's tires?
I hate this fricking quote.
It would be trivial to write/illustrate a car chase, have the Batmobile run over caltrops, then show the tires self-seal. Or maybe have the Batmobile jettison the busted tire and pushing out a new one from its undercarriage like a snack dispensing machine. Or have the Batmobile break apart and transform into a motorcycle. (Didn't one of the Nolan movies do this?)
Much of the delight of writing is in asking these banal questions, and coming up with creative solutions. Solve problems rather than dismiss them.
Honestly, I think you could do a good set of worldbuilding with Batman by establishing that, yes, the Batmobile CAN do that kind of shit. But how?
Bruce should have a small but extremely trusted staff of people beyond just Alfred that work in the Batcave that support him being Batman. Bruce might design a lot of his own gadgets, or use Wayne enterprises tech from their vaults, but the simple fact of the matter is that building and maintaining and upgrading his gear and car and such is a fulltime job. There just not enough hours in the day for him to train to peak human condition, do all of the tech support of being Batman, AND actually go out and do his actual duties as Batman. Trying to do it all himself would burn him out fast, so he needs to delegate shit.
I like the idea that Batman has things like a doctor and a mechanic and a few other experts on call, who do work in the Batcave, but don't know Batman's true identity. They know they work for Batman, but not that Batman is Bruce Wayne. This creates tension, provides easy exposition vehicles, makes Bruce seem more human by establishing his limits (even if his greatest limitation isn't ability but simply time) and gives him people that he depends on to do his work but who are not, themselves, superheroes who can help him in a fight. If Batman is getting his ass kicked by Bane there is probably nothing that his Mechanic can do but watch the monitor and pray.
There isn't, you're just autistic and think that this is saying "no don't ever worldbuild or create elaborate worlds" which is utterly moronic if you know ANYTHING about Grant Morrison and it's obviously saying that pedantic nitpicking about things that aren't relevant to the story at hand and demanding answers is fricking dumb.
But why? Why create a situation for a question? Sure if you did that all your own, it's interesting worldbuilding but if you're going out of your way to answer some nerd's question for a scenario that hasn't happened then it's kind of fricking dumb.
I'm not talking about Grant Morrison's quote specifically but the people who misuse the quote.
>Or have the Batmobile break apart and transform into a motorcycle. (Didn't one of the Nolan movies do this?)
Yes, that did happen in the Nolan movies. What DIDN'T happen was a scene of Lucius explaining that that feature existed, who designed it, and how it works, because not only would those details be irrelevant, explaining them before the scene would've detracted from how cool it was by ruining the surprise, and explaining it afterwards would've ruined the pacing. Sometimes there not only isn't a need for certain information, including it would actively make the story worse.
Yeah, one of the more fun scenes in the crappy Pierce Brosnan Bond sequels was in Tomorrow Never Dies where Bond is having to remotely control his gadget car from the backseat and is playing around with the controls, having no idea what he's doing, playing with the buttons and figuring out the crazy gadgets on the fly. No need for Q to exposit about the rocket launchers or laser cutters or whatever, the audience shares Bond's incredulous joy at discovering the ridiculous weapons.
>remnants in FNAF
FNAF is a convoluted shitshow in its lore because the creator admitted he wanted to frick with MatPat.
This has literally never been proven true ever and Matpat was flat out wrong about several things.
So, all he's doing here is admitting he doesn't have kids, or has never paid any attention to his kids, or ever listened to any kid whatsoever.
Kids are ultra curious, they ask more questions than any adult I have ever known.
What a maroon.
I'm pretty sure Alfred pumps the tires. Or maybe Harold did it back when he existed. Remember Harold?
Frick off, Mooregay.
https://desuarchive.org/co/thread/140262071/#140273013
It's not a bias against world building, Morrison is being a whiny c**t that people call him out on things that don't fit with the internal logic and consistency of his stories because it makes him work harder. In essence he is a lazy git.
Does Grant Morrison realy said that? And i domt think he is a reliable commentator. I mean he probably said that in anger after a fan asked him a question he couldnt answer. And we know he has a superior complex!
I mean Multiverse and Invisibles, his own work, proofs him wrong with this statement!
>I have no idea why there is such a giant bias against in depth worldbuilding
Um....what does that have to do with your image?
OP here. It's not so much the actual quote itself, rather than people misusing the quote against the idea of any in depth worldbuilding.
Its a statement about the concept "suspension of disbelief", which is the idea that we can enjoy unrealistic stories because the events unfolding are more fun than the banality of reality. The issue is adults have a deeper understanding of how things work, so when someone who ACTUALLY understands how construction and architecture and lifting works sees Superman lift a building, it takes them out because they know that isn't how that shit works.
The sin of the writer is trying to justify how the things they got wrong should still totally work because super powers instead of saying "Is that right? Well, its a fun story, so don't worry about it too much." Basically, its Morrison lamenting that kids have a lower bar and wishing adults would stop asking questions. Which is a shitty position.
At this point, I fricking WANT to see the pedantic corporate nonsense that is Bruce Wayne trying to source shit for his vigilante hobby, like who's this procurement agent buying military hardware, and how often does Bruce have to call them up because some piece of equipment isn't working like it's supposed to? Just this real bland shit reveling in the absurdity of either Batman having a supply chain or having these ridiculous one-man manufacturing facilities in the batcave and the logistics of getting raw materials.
Grappler Baki was weirdly a master of this concept. Going as far as legitimizing IRL bullshido like no touch knockout tactics
Further, every question you answer is a story. "What if this goes wrong? What if this is attacked? How would things function without it?" To name just a few.
I think I'd probably go out of my way to try and think of more outlandish and unrealistic answers. Like the materials guy is an off the books dock worker who Batman saved from being exorted by a gang of traffickers so now he just worked out a deal with Batman to take cash for any shipment that comes in, and there's like a million contacts with similar stories creating a whole supply line. Batman meanwhile handcrafts 90% of his tech in his "downtime" every batarang is rafted as a meditation for him, or busywork for Robins when he doesn't want them out in the fields. So when anyone asks dumb questions you have to go on shaggy dog tales.
Whats fun about that is "off the books" also means no quality control, and that shit matters for high precision parts. It also puts Batman in the cross hairs of DHS if he's basically leading a medium-large sized smuggling ring. Also going to get real interesting when Larry the Off the Books dock worker gets a reputation for being a guy not to frick with because the Bat keeps nabbing guys conveniently right after they frick with him, and God forbid Larry gets picked up by DHS himself and the only card he can play is turning on Batman.
Why can the cat talk?
Don't think about it, just have fun.
>This even applies to things like Midichlorians
I don't like Midichlorians because they don't bring anything to the story in the Prequels.
You can't introduce such a concept in a sci-fi story and do nothing with it. It's obvious that if people know the force is linked to the Midi, they will try to transfer them from a person to another, and to amplify and nullify their effect on the force.
In The Night's Dawn Trilogy, it is established that souls are a really thing when the living start being possessed by dead people from centuries past. There are scientists who experiment on souls but can only find a way to destroy them, not end the possession.