?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Just let me ask you this; are you able to envision that little Christiansen twerp fighting Samuel L. Jackson and winning?

Me neither. Nevertheless, I'm gonna go see the thing. I'm helpless.

It's recently been brought to my attention that both the original Star Trek and Star Wars are pretty much crap. I never claimed that the dialog was stellar or that the acting was remarkable. It's just that they were science fiction, and at their time, they were the only game in town. SF in print was already well established, of course, and of much higher quality. But if you wanted visual spectacles and things blowing up (and I have always been a fan of the BFE*) where else were you gonna go? What can I say. I am in many ways a 14-year-old boy.

It's also been noted that Stargate SG-1 has a lot in common with Star Wars. Perhaps not the least of these similarities is the way the SG-1 Powers That Be heavily cut their "meaningful dialog" budget, and pass the savings along to their special effects department. A Wheadon joint it ain't, I'll confess. Which is probably why I read a lot of SG fanfic, and not much Buffy fanfic. Buffy doesn't need the "plot spackle**" to fill in the gaps where the profound personal moments should be. Everything I wanted to see was right there on the screen.

None of this explains why I consistently prefer the strictly explody, Big Cool Spaceship SF shows to the ones like Farscape, which has actual character arcs and believable relationships. In addition to Big Cool Spaceships. I'm starting to think that I don’t want much depth with my SF. Real interpersonal stuff is messy and sometimes ugly. I'd guess I'd rather keep it kind of shallow.

Er. Yeah. Anyway, sorry to ramble. And thanks very much to those of you who picspammed me yesterday. Anyone who has nifty images is still encouraged to post 'em or email them to me. I will make you an icon! I'll be your friend forever!

*for the uninitiated, that's Big Fucking Explosion
**props to E for this eminently useful term.

Comments

( 22 comments — Leave a comment )
oletheros
May. 27th, 2005 03:31 pm (UTC)
after some research (reading bad reviews on the internet), i've decided that you can determine how well someone has maintained their childlike sense of wonder by whether they enjoyed episode iii or not. because you're right - it's spectacle and meant to be eye candy. the rest (acting and dialogue, mostly) is, alas, just not up to par.
fenriss
May. 27th, 2005 04:05 pm (UTC)
As I was saying to E just last night, "childlike wonder" is just a euphemism for stupidity :)

But, yeah. I'm only insulting myself, because I am confident that when I finally brave the crowds, I'll be awestruck and squeeing away with the geekiest of 'em.
oletheros
May. 27th, 2005 04:10 pm (UTC)
the important word is sense, although most people just focus on the childlike part (which they often mistake for childish). it doesn't mean you're a child any more than it means that you're stupid. but it does mean that you have a capacity to enjoy new and interesting things for their own sake before all of the semantic "what does this mean?" garbage/baggage gets piled on top of it.
fenriss
May. 27th, 2005 04:16 pm (UTC)
All kidding aside, I totally agree. I get so god-awful frustrated with "fans" of some work, that cannot seem to stop meticulously ripping it to shreds. Some things should just be enjoyed at the level to which its creator chose to take it. There's no shame in turning down your critical thinking a notch or two. It just proves that you have some in the first place.
oletheros
May. 27th, 2005 04:30 pm (UTC)
nuance
actually, i can almost appreciate the fact that people want to hold their favorite pieces to a higher standard because they are so fond of them. relentless analyzing the creations to find the edges of their personal dissatisfaction is only natural.

where i get frustrated is when people who are not fans simply rip into things with no regard for the fact that people actually enjoy them on their own merits. it's almost like stepping on a cat's tail just for the sake of doing it. or pointing out that the emperor wears no clothes. or some metaphor that sits right between those two.

but i think you're right that there is no shame in turning down your critical thinking in order to enjoy something. however, some creative works only get by on the first viewing - after that, they have to be able survive on a much higher critical plane because the viewer is expecting the same visceral thrill; if it cannot deliver the second time around, then it should expect to get some negative feedback.
smoakes777
May. 27th, 2005 06:20 pm (UTC)
Re: nuance
"where i get frustrated is when people who are not fans simply rip into things with no regard for the fact that people actually enjoy them on their own merits."

I once heard Teller of Penn & Teller say that if one person likes a piece of art and another person hates it... The person who likes it is the person it was made for, and so it is a success.
oletheros
May. 27th, 2005 06:24 pm (UTC)
Re: nuance
i like that. i think i'm going to try and remember that for further usage.
eac
May. 27th, 2005 03:38 pm (UTC)
It's recently been brought to my attention that both the original Star Trek and Star Wars are pretty much crap. I never claimed that the dialog was stellar or that the acting was remarkable.

Both of them had qualities at the time that were stellar and remarkable, and both had very compelling story telling. (Well, Star Wars is more consistent on that, but Lucas didn't have to come up with an episode every week.)

Plus, Star Trek was a great vehicle for 60s political messages.

Me, though, I'm a girl. I like relationship fic with the occasional BFE, so I'm drawn to the Whedonverses. This is why I can't mock people who read all sorts of romance novels.
fenriss
May. 27th, 2005 04:13 pm (UTC)
You know I hate to dis Trek. It's just that, except for Nimoy, the acting really was pretty awful. And the writing was usually no better than mediocre. But you have an excellent point about the social commentary. And I still love it dearly for the basic concepts on which it's based.

Me, though, I'm a girl. I like relationship fic with the occasional BFE

Ultimately, the fic I read is pretty heavy on the relationship stuff, too. And I honestly think that my delicate, girly nature is part of the reason I've lately been avoiding shows with much interpersonal stuff. I just don't have the constitution to handle the painful parts anymore. For example, when "The Body" first aired, something broke in me. Ugh. Ouch. Don't like the hurty stuff! I also tend to steer away from fic with "angst: warnings.

so I'm drawn to the Whedonverses.

Oh, me too. Joss stuff, as I have stated repeatedly, if far superior in most ways to the Gateverse, and most of the other entertainments I indulge in. I guess I just tend to prefer to let Joss tell the stories. Not at all sure why. Maybe that'll change eventually.

This is why I can't mock people who read all sorts of romance novels.

Of course you can, silly! Fanfic is art. Bodice-rippers are trash. *nods vigorously*
eac
May. 27th, 2005 04:23 pm (UTC)
It's just that, except for Nimoy, the acting really was pretty awful. And the writing was usually no better than mediocre.

Oh, that's true, but compared to WHAT? I mean...Lost in Space? Buck Rogers serials? Bonanza? The Twilight Zone tended to be better quality, but they didn't develop the same characters over time, so it was a different game.

*nods vigorously*

*kisses you on nose*
crossbonesdj
May. 27th, 2005 03:39 pm (UTC)
picture of spader from crash about to kiss the guy (can't remember his name right now) = teh hot.

very hot.

burning hot.
fenriss
May. 27th, 2005 04:20 pm (UTC)
Oh. Oh, my, yes. *swoons*

Have you actually seen that scene? One needs smelling-salts close at hand. It actually made a bunch of people get up and walk out of the theater, which I think is testimony to the intensity of the hotness.
crossbonesdj
May. 27th, 2005 04:25 pm (UTC)
Oh yes...I have seen the movie and read the book...
(Deleted comment)
fenriss
May. 28th, 2005 11:18 am (UTC)
"Crash" by James Ballard. It was a 1996 movie, I think. Hottest boy/boy scene in any mainstream, Hollywood film, IMO.
crossbonesdj
May. 28th, 2005 01:41 pm (UTC)
The book and the movie are both called "Crash". Now, you want the older version of Crash, not the one in theaters right now. The book is by JG Ballard.
smoakes777
May. 27th, 2005 03:58 pm (UTC)
I've decide not to see any of the [last three? first three? how does one say it?] episodes 1-3.
Star Wars, Jedi, and Empire, were so important to me in so many different ways that i just don't want them fucked with. There are a lot of sequels I wish I hadn't seen/read because they ruined the original ("Drat, ten minutes after that big kiss scene where I finally won her, she laughed and told me she was leaving me. Here I am single again!") and it seems like this could be worse.


What I hate is when people who aren't in fandom, and don't know me that well, ask if I'm going to see it... When I say no, they sort of nod and say something about me just not being into science fiction.
It's a little dramatic to make the speech I made above to someone who doesn't get it, but I hate not explaining.

fenriss
May. 27th, 2005 04:27 pm (UTC)
What I hate is when people who aren't in fandom, and don't know me that well, ask if I'm going to see it... When I say no, they sort of nod and say something about me just not being into science fiction.

Ack! What an unfortunate misunderstanding. I can get why you wouldn't want to expose yourself to the prequels. Personally, I can kind of scrub my brain clean of parts that don't fit for me, but I know not everyone can, or is inclined to do that. I am going for a few emblemic scenes that I want to experience.

(PS- am reading the thing you sent, and will reply soon. Please forgive the lateness of my response! Things are nuts here. Hugs to you.)
minniethemoocha
May. 27th, 2005 04:16 pm (UTC)
picspam
This one would be great for "WRONG!!!"

fenriss
May. 27th, 2005 04:28 pm (UTC)
Re: picspam
OK... I am a doofus, but I don't quite think I get it. Am I absurdly out of the loop?

Thanks for contributing to the my image-collection effort!
minniethemoocha
May. 27th, 2005 07:02 pm (UTC)
Re: picspam
Oh, that's John MacLaughlin holding a Barbie doll. He hosts The MacLauglin Group, a Battling Pundit Freeforall that has been on NBC every week for something like 25 or 30 years. There used to be a SNL sketch making fun of the show, and the guy (can't picture who it was) who imitated Mac Laughlin would frequently interrupt the person who answered his questions with the interjection, "WRONG!!! Next issue!" I thought it was funny :-) Oh, well, maybe I will make an icon out of it!
rionnkelly
May. 27th, 2005 10:49 pm (UTC)
Don't feel too bad. The last time I saw Star Wars, I was kind of wondering how I ever thought that flick was "all that." But I end up feeling that way about a lot of movies that initially grab me by my shiny brass ones after I've seen them over and over again. "Titanic" and "Gangs of New York" are the most recent ones that come to mind.
rionnkelly
May. 27th, 2005 10:50 pm (UTC)
Oh and by the way, I felt the same way about Liam Neeson getting his ass kicked by that freak in the kabuki makeup.
( 22 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

ghost
fenriss
Fenriss

Latest Month

October 2016
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner