Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Historically, my gramps saw Avatar and said: "It's basically Fern Gully."

Yeah!... well not really.

Only in superficial qualities (in that it is about a human who is shrunk so he is fairy sized against an environmental monster)

[Bohandas]

Historically, my gramps saw Avatar and said: "It's basically Fern Gully."

I had that exact same thought!

It really is exactly the same plot as Fern Gully, except with technobabble instead of magic.

[Xantalos]

Historically, my gramps saw Avatar and said: "It's basically Fern Gully."

I had that exact same thought!

It really is exactly the same plot as Fern Gully, except with technobabble instead of magic.

Quaritch and Hexxus are around the same level of sexy...

[i2amroy]

Historically, my gramps saw Avatar and said: "It's basically Fern Gully."

I had that exact same thought!

It really is exactly the same plot as Fern Gully, except with technobabble instead of magic.

Except we all know it's really just Dances with Wolves IN SPACE with the "right" people winning this time.

[10ebbor10]

Welcome to Joseph Campbell's Monomyth.

Really, the thing is everywhere, from Avatar, to the Bible, to Star Wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

[LordBaal]

Very interesting.

Also very "fixable" if you have a mac cannon pointing the dwelling of said "hero" and he has no way to know you are up there.

[10ebbor10]

?

[Neonivek]

Welcome to Joseph Campbell's Monomyth.

Really, the thing is everywhere, from Avatar, to the Bible, to Star Wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

Really? The Bible has a mother goddess? Any of the characters has went into the underworld? Which ones refused the call?

The trick is that because you HAVE to stretch it to apply to everything all you have to do is relax the elements.

And once you relax the elements you just get a basic plot layout that applies to almost anything.

Character sees something, character does something, Character sees someone, something bad happens, something good happens, the end... In any order

Above is the monomyth boiled down to all the details people look at.

[Sergius]

I agree, it's one thing to try to fit every round peg Movie into a monomyth square hole, and another to point out that the plot of Eragon is the same as Star Wars nearly scene for scene. Which it was...

[LordBaal]

?

That I would like to see that. Avatar 2. The RDA comes back with a ship fitted with a MAC cannon. They shoot the darn tree, hopefully killing that traitor, end of the monomyth. Restart mining operations with even heavier military support. Perhaps even some government and heavier weapons support, now that the natives are proven threats to humanity. End of movie. I know it would be a really bad and short movie, but it would also be probably what would happen in real life.

[Il Palazzo]

I know it would be a really bad and short movie, but it would also be probably what would happen in real life.

What you do, is make another movie about mostly unrelated stuff but in the same or similar universe, and have at some point some characters mention off-hand a successful mining operation on the planet Pandora that some PETA activists are trying to boycott due to alleged wildlife preservation issues or something.

[LordBaal]

I know it would be a really bad and short movie, but it would also be probably what would happen in real life.

What you do, is make another movie about mostly unrelated stuff but in the same or similar universe, and have at some point some characters mention off-hand a successful mining operation on the planet Pandora that some PETA activists are trying to boycott due to alleged wildlife preservation issues or something.

hahahaha that's a good one!

[Rolan7]

Welcome to Joseph Campbell's Monomyth.

Really, the thing is everywhere, from Avatar, to the Bible, to Star Wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

Really? The Bible has a mother goddess? Any of the characters has went into the underworld? Which ones refused the call?

The trick is that because you HAVE to stretch it to apply to everything all you have to do is relax the elements.

And once you relax the elements you just get a basic plot layout that applies to almost anything.

Character sees something, character does something, Character sees someone, something bad happens, something good happens, the end... In any order

Above is the monomyth boiled down to all the details people look at.

They do say "Very few myths contain all 17 of the stages".  Which makes it even easier to fit vastly different stories into the framework, of course.  I still think it's a fun exercise and highlights common elements in most stories.

Well, until I actually read the steps and Campbell's comments on them.  Wow.  Not only are these steps metaphorically (even misleadingly) named, they're tied to some disturbing, obsolete concepts.  It's understandable since he was talking about ancient myths I guess, but even then he's shoehorning them into meanings I'm not sure match the original intent.  And the overuse of metaphor to stretch the connections makes it hard to take seriously.

I was going to say that the Virgin Mary is a Mother Goddess, and that Jesus goes to the underworld.  But the Goddess step isn't about a goddess at all!  It's about unconditional love, usually from the love interest, which unites the spiritual hero with the worldly world.  Campbell just calls the step "The Meeting with the Goddess", presumably because unconditional love is a divine trait in a woman.

But just... read his comments on that section.  Again, he's talking about ancient myths, but... ugh.  He did specifically try to fit Jesus into these somehow.  It can work if you consider "The Queen Goddess of the World" to be his apostles, which I think highlights the absurdity of his metaphors.  I don't know if that's what he claims, or if he just made a bunch of assumptions about Mary Magdalene.

This touches on at least two topics with high derail potential...  If that happens I'll make a Monomyth thread.

[Neonivek]

Joseph Campbell was just trying to generalize based off of his own observations.

This falls under a sort of George Orwell staple called "People misattributing his work far beyond his intent to an absolute predictive template". Taking his work which is a loose generalization and upgrading it to an outright template that almost all fiction "must" be following.

[LordBaal]

If that happens I'll make a Monomyth thread.

Which I promptly blow up with a MAC cannon. 

The basic criticizing towards that is here