Text 13721, 144 rader
Skriven 2007-04-20 22:14:22 av Josh Hill (84.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Attn JMS: The five stages of grief and  "FALLEN SON: THE     DEATH 
===============================================================================
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:49:09 GMT, "Vorlonagent"
<nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:o8dg235l9nqi0hvep0nlo6tg5cfvf0csod@4ax.com...
>
>>>I *liked* Madonna in her mid-80's heyday.  I didn't thnk she was "all 
>>>that",
>>>but I liked her.  I thought and think she did some good stuff once she 
>>>came
>>>out of her early "material girl" bubblegum stage (which itself was OK).
>>>Then she decided to go all "artiste" and, well, there you are.  She was
>>>already losing it with "Express yourself" and imitating Michael Jackson's
>>>crotch grab.  <rolls eyes>.
>>
>> I always had the impression that Madonna was a master of
>> self-promotion rather than an artist. No performing talent, and no
>> song-writing talent of which I'm aware -- she just seems to have
>> attached her name to songs that others wrote.
>
>There's a difference between an artiste and an artist.  Mostly it's a matter 
>of pretensiousness.
>
>She was a master showman and knew how to surf the pop-culture waves of the 
>80's at their height.  She was no stand-out musical or dance talent but when 
>it comes to that sort of thing luck is more a factor in entertainment 
>success than talent.  She got lucky enough to get an opportnity and had the 
>intelligence and wit to run with it.  But she got full of herself.

Can't argue with any of that. I do think (know?) that to a very great
degree she made her luck, which is kind of interesting, because a
friend who knew her when she was getting started tells me that she was
very unsure of herself. And she kept herself alive by reinventing
herself. She's a master of (self-)promotion.

>> OTOH, I did love the book, because I loved Ender. I don't know quite
>> what authorial magic Card used to create that bond, but I've found
>> that when a book does that, I react strongly to it. Haven't always
>> felt that way about Card's work, which can be repetitive and tends I
>> think to be stronger on people than the science fictional aspect.
>
>I liked Ender but didn't bond.
>
>Nor would I be one to recommend Card's chaarcterization ability.

Guess it's a glass half empty/half full thing . . . I can think of
many who are better, and (particularly in science fiction) many who
are worse.

>> I confess I wasn't wild about Galen either, mostly because he, well,
>> seemed to posture too much -- but then, there's a depth to the
>> technomage concept that only comes out in the books, and I assume this
>> would have made its way into the series, which just didn't have a fair
>> chance to develop. Ditto for Gideon: I suspect his character would
>> have gained depth as we learned more about the magic box.
>
>It's possible, but Sinclair didn't seem to be aquiring much in the way of 
>depth though the first season of B5.  Those who had depth or the capability, 
>showed it immidiatley.  Sheridan wasn't very deep but the ability was there. 
>Delenn always had it.  G'Kar had to play the bad guy for a while but even 
>there we get a few flashes of the G'Kar we came to know.  Byron, on the 
>other hand...the only depths he ever knew were his own self-pity.
>
>Neither of the G's had it.  Neither of the G's looked like they were getting 
>it.  They were both bland and flat characters to me.

I think, though, that Galen /had/ to be played like that. I don't know
how much range he had as an actor, but without spoiling the technomage
trilogy I can say that there's a reason, that the hard-shelled reserve
is an accurate depiction of something which wasn't explained in
Crusade.

Can't say the same for Gideon, because I don't know what would have
happened.

Funny, I saw Sinclair as sort of a philosopher. Sheridan was I think
supposed to be shallow at the start and to gain depth as events
developed. Delenn, of course, was supposed to be somewhat mysterious
and alien. And Londo and G'Kar were played by extraordinary actors . .
..

As to poor Byron, I confess I'm the sole and solitary member of his
fan club. Maybe I should defend Wesley Crusher next . . . Seriously, I
never thought that Byron was motivated primarily by self-pity: he's an
idealist who is consumed with guilt over his role in the massacre of
innocent civilians.

>>>The Shadow Within.  Jeanne Cavelos romanced Mr. Morden by proxy through 
>>>Anna
>>>Sheridan way too much and was way too happy to whitewash Mr Morden by
>>>explaining why he decided to work for the Shadows.  Won't touch her
>>>technomage trilogy.
>>
>> My memories of that are dim, but while I did enjoy Cavelos's
>> novelizations, I wasn't wild about the novelized Anna Sheridan story,
>> which seemed to me to lack and even detract from the compelling horror
>> of the episodes. So too some other cases in the novels where I felt
>> that excessive explanation robbed the story of impact and mystery.
>>
>> I suppose there's some of that in the technomage trilogy, but -- they
>> do have a fascinating background and explanation.
>
>I personally dislike the Shadow tech connection.  I'd have preferred they be 
>their own thing.  But there are many details I'm un aware of so it might not 
>bother me as much if I knew more.

I'm ambivalent, in that I was disappointed to learn about it -- it
seemed to remove some magic from the world -- but that the premise was
very well developed, and yielded some good dramatic conflicts.

>>>Finally, Saving Private Ryan.  Spielberg hit us with a hyper-real D-Day
>>>landing then left realism on Omaha Beach, spending the rest of the film
>>>trying to turn Tom Hanks into John Wayne.
>>
>> LOL. Am I the only one who laughed during that movie? Something about
>> the earnestness of the fake guts. I never like Spielberg when he's
>> trying to be serious, because you can see how hard he's trying, and
>> yet it's not his sensibility.
>
>I am perhaps too serious for my own good.  I was caught up in the film in 
>the sense that I emerge sheken.  I was finding it hard to suspend disbelief 
>before the movie was over on one level yet felt (and shrugged off once my 
>brain kicked in) the full emotional impact.

Maybe it's my unconscious defending me, but when I see excessive gore
in a chainsaw pic or the like it destroys the suspension of disbelief
for me, and hence the horror, in the sense of fear and moral
repugnance both: I just see stage blood and sausage and plastic parts,
and it reminds me of the spaghetti worm infested "horror houses" we
made when I was a kid. So a film like Psycho can scare me witless and
a film like All Quiet on the Western Front can leave me shaken, angry,
and sad, while their more overt cousins leave me cold or mildly
amused.

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)