Regarding Jung… you can just catch the highlight boxes for the gist of it all…
The petticoat scandal!!! Soon to reignite on social media!!!
Well, if you can even consider the Greek tales of their gods and heroes as religious. It’s closer to modern superhero stories than to Christian religious writing…
Also, the first work of literary theory that we still have is already 2300 years old, so, you know.
I think that is a wrong understanding of originality is. Original doesn’t mean that something is entirely new and has never been before, it just means that the - usually familiar - elements have never been presented in quite this way before.
It’s a difficult and complex issue, but arguing that originality has no importance whatsoever seems disingenious to me; after all, we all recognise when a work is too familiar, when it is essentially just a rip-off of something else and doesn’t contribute anything new at all. Or, on the other hand, you can’t deny when something comes along that is new and has an impact because people have never seen something like it before, in spite of its familiar elements - and a lot of that is not about characters, but rather about structure.
Of course. It’s not the story, it’s how you tell it.
The point still stands, though. 1980 is still extremely recent in the overall history of the mythos.
I don’t disagree but I am just allocating the correct credit to the idea. Thank you.
Understood. I would have done the same if I had got here early enough
In story telling, as the plot thickens, there sometimes is a brief respite scene or character who provides comic relief. I haven’t seen that since the Star Trek movie when Data got his emotion chip and was acting silly which didn’t look right in the movie.
Is comic relief a thing of the past?
No, I don’t think so. You can look at the storytelling formula used for (say) the MCU movies, where comic relief (usually some kind of glib one-liner) being used to puncture moments where the story threatens to get overly serious is a pretty integral part of that formula. Whedon always leaned heavily on it.
It’s not going to be used in everything, but it’s still very common.
One thing about story tellers is most have created a popular world but hardly two. I mean George Lucas outside of Star Wars, Roddenberry outside of Trek, and so many others. It is why I don’t put too much stock in “From the creator of … comes”
Now They are promoting another world from GRRM outside of GOT. Have to see.
Considering DEADPOOL’s success - an entire movie of comic relief - I think it will always be a part of popular films. What is a thing of the past is absolute smaltzy sincerity. Think back to T2 when the Terminator descends into the molten steel and gives a thumbs up right before he goes under. It’s hard to see that sort of thing working anymore.
Hacksaw Ridge did pretty well, right?
True - that was pure smaltz in a lot of places. You still see it from a lot of directors (and former actors) like Gibson and Cameron who were big in the 80’s.
As far as the comic relief, just look at the recent Mission Impossible - again, though, that’s Tom Cruise so something of a thing of the past. Today’s action movies are probably more action comedies than straight action movies anymore, though. It’s hard to think of any that take themselves entirely seriously except maybe for the new run of Godzilla films (however, Kong: Skull Island was much funnier than Godzilla). Even Logan had plenty of comedic scenes despite being a fairly dark CyberWestern.
Many, many of them have, actually. You just have to look beyond those who wrote series novels that take place in the same fantastic world - each self-contained novel establishes its own universe, in a way.
To mention some examples that come to mind: Neil Gaiman (Neverwhere’s world, American Gods’ world, The Sandman’s world), Clive Barker (Weaveworld, Imajica, the Books of the Art etc. etc.), Stephen King (The Dark Tower novels, The Stand, many standalone books), Tad Williams (Osten Art, the virtual reality universe of Otherland), Philip José Farmer (who invented quite a few literary universes that a number of novels took place in, like the Riverworld series and the World of Tiers), and of course Michael Moorcock, who invented so many universes that when he began having crossovers between them, he kinda had his own multiverse to play with.
And so on.
But when you get into authors and comic book writers, you start to talk about something else entirely. It’s not just the ability to come up with something else, but for two of your creations to be massively popular, and there you find things more problematic. Jeff Smith wrote and drew two massively different comics, Bone and RASL, but it’s Bone that everyone cares about.
You could argue that George Lucas did have another massively popular creation: Indiana Jones. But he’s always going to share credit with Spielberg over that one.
Where do we draw the dividing line between “background for your story” and “world”? I would suggest that a “world” is something that supports numerous stories that can exist isolated from each other (i.e. not just sequels continuing the same story).
So Gene Roddenberry created a “world” for Star Trek. James Cameron created a “story background” for Terminator (and we will have to wait and see for Avatar).
I think that’s a bit of an arbitrary distinction. There are a great many worlds that could support numerous stories, it’s just that they were never written. American Gods is a pretty self-contained novel, it just so happened that Gaiman had another few stories in him that could take place in that world. The same could have gone for Neverwhere (and it happens that he did write another one taking place there, How the Marquis Got His Coat Back - it’s just a bit obscure).
Conversely, by that definition you could argue that Tolkien did not create a world, but only a background for Lord of the Rings, as the story of the ring was the only story he ever told in the form of novels that took place in Middle Earth; everything else was just history books, basically.
I would suggest that almost any sci-fi story (at least if it is set in the future, or off-world) or fantasy story by necessity creates a world that could theoretically support numerous stories. Otherwise, it’s just bad fantasy (or bad sci-fi) because the author didn’t create a single thing outside of the necessity of his story, apparently.
(Where Terminator is concerned, one can argue that it’s just not that kind of sci-fi - it works more like the horror genre does, with something monstrous breaking into our reality that has to be destroyed.)