this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2026
704 points (98.2% liked)

Comic Strips

23030 readers
3904 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Maybe, but that would be as dumb as calling it a MacGuffin, which is basically same thing in suspense thrillers.

"Let's invade this planet and kill everybody for a MacGuffin!"

It's not like he worked that hard at the story. The plot is literally Ferngully, and the name was already in use in another animated series. He was clearly more interested in creating a vehicle for his film tech, which he obviously cared more about than that clumsy story.

[–] lama@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Well yeah of course MacGurffin makes a terrible fake metal name. Change it to MacGufftanium and then we've got a real winner

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 12 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I don't know, I mean, look at the naming that some tech companies use IRL. They use some pretty silly names. The idea of a company finding a metal that's sci-fi grade and calling it Unobtanium as a nod to their love of sci-fi isn't that crazy.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

This seems like the same problem that we have with shuffling music, where a truly random shuffle doesn't feel random; if you make it less random, it ends up feeling more random. Similarly, making a movie less realistic can make it feel more realistic.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In real life, poor imagination is acceptable. In a billion dollar movie, we expect better than real life.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It was the imagination of a character in the movie that was bad, not the makers of the movie. I'm not trying to simp for James Cameron or something lol, that statement sounds like I am.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 0 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I know you know this, but, there is no character with an imagination. Cameron made him up. He's not real. He didn't imagine anything.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

That's a really weird way to think about it. Yes, obviously they're all fictional, but you can of course make a character that has a vivid imagination or one that doesn't.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

No, it isn't. It's a normal way to think about it. Your way of thinking is how people fall in love with imaginary AI friends.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 20 hours ago

Lmao no, thinking about what an author/director/etc may have intended for a character's inner thoughts, motivations, and characteristics to be is not the same as AI psychosis.

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I was about to say, we live in a world where Big Brother is about to be fully matured and is unironically named Palantir. I really don't know what else to say, like the point should be clear.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 1 day ago

I almost gave that exact example. Yes. Totally on the same page. Irony is dead and we've killed it.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 2 days ago

In real life it would have been named after it's discoverer or the planet on which it was found. Most sci-fi shows at least name their made up materials Nequadah, Trilithium, Spice, Red Matter, Really hot tea, etc