Text 13947, 184 rader
Skriven 2007-04-24 21:50:41 av Josh Hill (310.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 Tue, 24 Apr 2007 07:01:13 GMT, "Vorlonagent"
<nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:tgri235n6397njcenrenhootvq2ou4dok2@4ax.com...
>
>>>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 don't grade on a curve.
>
>Everybody earns their place by passing or failing the same standards.  And 
>I'm a tough sell.  I have loopholes for work that doesn't take itself 
>seriously or presents itself with originality or style.  I could easily put 
>modern BSG on this list.  It made points for originality but chipped away at 
>my suspension of disbelief over time.

Mine too -- I have the impression that BSG just wasn't conceived to
fill as many episodes as it did, and when it became apparent that it
was going to be a long-running show they had to make some rather hokey
character and plot changes to make it work.

Anyway, when it comes to books and other works of art, I do grade on a
curve, because if I didn't, I'd have very few books to read! Just as I
can enjoy a hot dog or a burger even though they aren't as good as
lobster or sirloin. I mean, how many works have characterizations as
good as Hamlet's? None, really, or almost none. So I'm happy if I find
a character engaging, and happier still if I can learn something or
see something in that character that reminds me of the complexities of
life rather than the stock characters in other stories. At his best,
Card does that for me.

(Having tried my hand at character creation, I can say that it's a
/lot/ harder than it seems to create someone that's not a paper
cutout. For me, anyway, and I suspect for the many writers who copy
and recopy the rare originals, the Ahabs and the Falstaffs and the
Sherlocks and the Hucks.)

>>>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.
>
>Nobody *has* to be played like anything.  There's a lot of ways to play your 
>cards close to the vest and still be expressive.  Spock or Kosh to name two 
>(three?)
>
>Galen did not come off magical, he came off dull and hackneyed.

But he wasn't supposed to come off magical. That's in the books: the
technomages aren't Merlins, they're something altogether different.
Maybe another player could have done a better job with the role while
remaining faithful to the story -- I don't know -- but the technomages
aren't in the least bit magical and they aren't by nature good.
They're walking around with the equivalent of an abscessed tooth and
they're trying to suppress the symptoms. That's the best I can do
without spoiling the story.

>> 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 . .
>
>Sincliar was very philosophical.  He was also very judgemental and 
>moralistic.  To excess at times, lending him his wooden delivery. Which 
>never came off well until he was Valen in all but name.  He was also played 
>with more expression in War Without End.
>
>Gideon inherited all of Sinclair's downside, his stick-up-his-butt moralism 
>(a strange characteristic in a man phrased as a "gambler").

I suspect we'd all like to hang out with Tony Soprano rather than the
preacher -- until we end up wishing that we'd hung out with the
preacher instead. But stick-up-the-ass characters can work -- Picard I
think being the prime example of that -- if the acting and writing is
right.

Some of Gideon's inconsistency may have been a result of meddling by
TNT. It's been a long time, but didn't their pressure lead to the
not-very-convincing fight with the mutinous crew members at the
beginning? Also, I've noticed that characters tend to mutate a bit and
then firm up as a show progresses and the writers and actors fall into
their groove. It seems that a writer can start off thinking "I want a
rough-edged, imperfect captain," and write that into the pilot, and by
Episode 6 the fellow has turned into Joan of Arc.

>> 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.
>
>You reckon without Byron's self-destructive side.  The man was looking for a 
>cause to die for, not one to live for.  He was stuck in his own guilt and 
>self-hatred.  It was all about him, about his mistake and atoning for it. 
>Maybe that's not self-pity but it's certainly a depth of self-absorbtion.

That seems to be a frequent trope on television and for that matter
literature -- a character who's done something terrible and spends the
rest of his life atoning for it by doing good. I mean, look at Xena!
But I would argue that, IRL anyway, such characters aren't just about
themselves: the fact that they feel /guilt/ about what they did means
that they feel for others. The sociopath or near-sociopath just
wouldn't care. Your more typical real world evildoer would probably
rationalize his way out of feeling guilt.

>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.
>
>Maybe, but...why tie everything to the First Ones?  It suggests a small 
>minded view of the world.

Guess you'd have to ask JMS. But while I know what you're saying, and,
really, felt somewhat the same way when I first learned about it, I do
think it's in keeping with the series premise, which is that
everything /is/ tied in with the Vorlons and the Shadows, who have
after all been meddling in our affairs since we were mice.

>>>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.
>
>I have a very thin boundary between reality and imagination.  Most movies I 
>am there, wherever the movie takes me.  I kind of have to watch what I go to 
>see because whatever I do see is happening all around me for two hours.  A 
>good film grows stronger as I return to the real world.  Weak films fall 
>apart.  SPR dissolved by the time I got to the car, coming off a very 
>intense in-theater experience.

That's great, actually. And, interestingly enough, it makes you a
top-notch candidate for hypnosis. I'm somewhere in-between -- I
disappear only partly into the film, more so if I'm in a theater than
if I'm watching TV.

Weak films never engage me, or engage me only for brief stretches. As
in your case, I find that the effect of strong films stays with me
after I leave the theater. Some perhaps overly cerebral films affect
me most strongly after the closing credits, e.g., some late Woody
Allen films, which affect me as I process the moral dilemmas and
symbolism.

Curiously, when I tried my hand at a science fiction novel a few years
ago, I found that I disappeared entirely into the world I and my
friendly neighborhood spider-subconscious were creating. It was like
being immersed in an exciting novel, only more so.. Exhilirating.

-- 
Josh

"Wagner has wonderful moments, and dreadful quarters of an hour." - Rossini
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)