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.


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.
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.
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.
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.
May. 27th, 2005 04:30 pm (UTC)
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.
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.
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.



Latest Month

February 2019

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner