Text 14006, 194 rader
Skriven 2007-04-25 18:00:58 av Josh Hill (369.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 Wed, 25 Apr 2007 04:46:14 GMT, "Vorlonagent"
<nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:7s8t23964skjik96cfcq9mhi1lgohpubvk@4ax.com...
>
>Card apparently made some points with you that he didn't with me.
>
>Nor do I apply the same standards for a good burger as for a good steak. 
>But there are standards I apply for both.  I know what a good steak is and I 
>know what a good burger is.  I do not say of a bad burger, "well I knew I 
>wasn't getting steak", I say "it's a bad burger by 'burger' standards".

I don't know that my criteria are as systematic as yours. I mean, when
I eat a good burger, my stomach says to me "mmmm," and when I eat a
fine steak, it perks up and says "wow." And that's the way I react to
art as well. A book can be a "good read" or it can be boring or bad or
it can be great. As long as it amuses and engages me, I'm OK with it,
and the more the better. Which isn't to say that I don't nitpick and
analyze, just that I don't start with any particular expectation.

>That's what I mean by loopholes.  You characters don't need to be as vivid 
>if you telegraph to me that the show is not intended for them to be. 
>Farscape is a good example of this.  Especially the early seasons.  It's 
>supposed to be fun so it gets judged to a different standard.  B5, on the 
>other hand, is intentionally serious and dramatic, which means I expect more 
>characterization and care from B5 than Farscape.  And that's why I dislike 
>Sinclair, Gideon, Galen and...no *especially*...Byron.  Why also BSG 
>ultimately failed.  It presented itself such that it was judged by the 
>standards I judge B5 on.
>
>I work of a variant of "Fuzzy Pink Niven's Law" which says in brief "never 
>eat an inferior hot fudge sundae".  The food you eat may concern you or your 
>dressmeaker, but the point here is that if you're going to consume the 
>calories you should get a good bang for your buck.

I /wish/ I could do that, but I can't find enough good stuff. (Niven
should know, since IMO his later output doesn't come up to his earlier
works.) And you can only reread or rewatch something so many times.

Besides, quality isn't my only criterion. Bach and Shakespeare are
well-nigh inexhaustible, but there are times when I'm in the mood for
something lighter or more contemporary or just plain new and
different, even if it doesn't change my life or send chills down my
spine. But perhaps that segues into what you're saying -- my
requirements for a spy movie aren't the same as my requirements for a
symphony.

>My list here is a list of inferior hot fudge sundaes that other people rave 
>about.
>
>> (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.)
>
>The best often take on a life of their own.  The ones that stay shallow are 
>the ones that remain intellectualized concepts.

That's an interesting point.

>>>>>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.
>
>I've seen the shots of Galen's back with his shirt off.  I think I see what 
>you mean.
>
>I think it was in the portrayal.
>
>Elric *was* magical.  Maybe that's just the actor coming through.  But the 
>magic seemd to die with him leaving people with bits of what I assume to be 
>organic technology grafted to them. That's not what I saw when I saw Elric 
>and I'm still a little disappointed.

True, and as I think I said, I experienced the same disappointment. 

>>>> 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.
>
>I'm not saying that a cgaarcter driven to atone for a sin can't be good. 
>I'm saying Byron wasn't.  Byron wallowed in his guilt.  Byron let it eat out 
>his soul.  Byron chose  an easy death instead of standing up and fighting 
>for what was important to him.

I don't know, because I've never experienced that level of guilt. I
mean, I've never killed anyone except for that cute little girl, and
she deserved it for making a mean face at me. What would it be like to
destroy a ship full of innocent civilians? I can only infer from my
limited exposure to others. I've known Vietnam veterans who were
tormented years after the fact by some of the choices they had to
make.

>>>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.
>
>And nothing new happens everywhere?  Nothing unique springs up in some 
>half-forgotten backwater or lonely outpost of civilization?  There is 
>diveristy in the universe and origins should reflect it, not fly in the face 
>of it.
>
>Are the Vorlons or Shadows responsible for the Soul Hunters?  Just asking 
>that question threatens to rob them of half their identity, just as the 
>Shadow origin robs the technomages of half theirs.  (the magic part)

Well, again, I'm not really arguing. But I think JMS had something
mythic in mind here: the old races aren't /just/ races, they're
stand-ins for God (Lorien), good (the Vorlons), and evil (the
Shadows). Or moralizers and Machiavels. The idea is that they had a
galactic reach. Since they represent philosophies, they're something
like primary colors -- everywhere.

>>>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.
>
>I'm not surprised.  :)
>
>> 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.
>
>I sometimes forget to do that.  Some films I don't dare.  :)

I think I only do it when I'm truly engaged by the movie!

-- 
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)