I was about to refer you folks to comicbookresources.com where there’s a nice article about “Fallen Angel,” complete with more artwork from issue #1. And there, on the same page, is a diatribe from Erik Larsen that angrily scolds creators who merely work on company-owned characters rather than on characters they themselves own–which, technically when you get down to it, includes Lee, Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, etc., since everything they created was company owned…just as any characters created for those same titles now are company owned. Yet in the world of Erik Larsen, creators who labor only in the company owned field are “pûššìëš,” resting on their “fat áššëš” and failing to “show (Erik) what (they’ve) got.”
Now I haven’t bothered with Larsen’s previous columns, despite his swipes at me (and his oh-so-clever use of “But I digress” for transitions.) But the combination of blind irony and blatant hypocrisy on this one, I just have to address…
Over ten years ago, when Image broke away to follow their own muse, their own dream, to no longer “hold back,” I wrote a column which had something of the same tone to it. Except my attitude was that I was unimpressed by the notion that–freed of the shackles of the main companies–all Image was going to do was produce more superheroes. Putting aside questions of ownership, I pondered whether the superhero-choked marketplace really needed MORE superheroes. My feeling was that, if I was going to do creator-owned stuff and had the wherewithal to do whatever I wanted, introducing yet more superheroes would be the furthest thing from my mind.
(This is an attitude that I have backed up in my career. “Sachs & Violens,” “Soulsearchers and Company,” “Fallen Angel,” plus my novel creations such as “Sir Apropos of Nothing” are nothing like my other comic book work.)
Well sir! There was much excoriation and bleats from the Image boys, attributing all manner of vicious motivations to my comments. Superheroes were what made them happy. Superheroes were what they wanted to do?
Okay. Fine.
Yet now Erik is expressing disappointment with the allegedly narrow field of achievement of other creators in terms far more nasty, juvenle and insulting than anything I ever said. Except his complaints apparently stem not from the quality of the work so much as who owns it. If someone else owns the material, apparently, then you’re just not trying hard enough and you’re a wimp and pussy. Which I’m sure will come as a shock to the army of acclaimed Oscar-winning screenwriters who haven’t owned any scripts they’ve written, ever.
What POSSIBLE motivation could Larsen have for excoriating those who toil in the realm of company owned universes? Could it be…jealousy? Well, let’s check his recent track record: A widely decried and short-lived run on “Aquaman” that seemed to exist primarily to tear down my work on the book, all of which outsold his…and an attempt to get assigned to the Hulk with a take that Marvel didn’t want to touch with a ten meter cattle prod. Maybe he’s the fox dismissing those grapes as just too dámņëd sour.
Or maybe he’s just shilling for Image, with “Show me what you can do” as a naked attempt to get people to bring their potential new series to Image. That being the case, fine. Nothing wrong with trying to drum up business. But why does it have to be done on the level of a mindless jock? I’d say that being the head of a publishing concern and acting like a jáçkášš isn’t the smartest way to elicit support, but certainly the lesson of Bill Jemas has already been learned by everyone. Well…almost everyone.
Know what I think? I think if people are happy writing only Spider-Man or Superman or Batman or whatever…God bless ’em. There are so many people in this country who are laboring at jobs that they despise, where the hëll does ANYONE get off bìŧçh-šláppìņg people who are living out their dreams…the dreams of writing the characters they grew up with? And by the way, having the sheer nerve and determination to brave the staggering odds of breaking in to be able to achieve those goals deserves far more than a dismissive “peachy.” It deserves a “well done you” and “welcome to the club” and “stick with it.” It doesn’t deserve snottiness and arrogance and the towel-snapping bullying of the jock mentality Larsen displays with such facility.
And how about the notion that the people who achieved their goal of crafting new directions for the DCU or Marvel Universe achieved their current station in life without stepping over the bodies of friends in order to do so.
Producing creator-owned superhero tales is what makes Erik Larsen happy. Producing company owned superhero tales is what makes other creators happy. One is not intrinsically more cowardly than the other.
Just one fan’s opinion.
PAD
• 
I think I get Leviathan now. Y’see, as Rex points out, it’s not the stories that make sci fi what it is, it’s the setting. Because it can’t be the stories. If we’re trying to reach a human audience, we’re stuck with the same old human stories that have been around for thousands of years. I guess Star Trek is science fiction not because of warp drives, phasers, and smooth/bumpy (pick your flavor) Klingons, but because the Federation is this somewhat utopian government that provides for all, controls the weather, doesn’t use money, and seeks to peacefully explore it’s environs without unduly disturbing them. In other words, a government impossible to attain, knowing what we do of human passions. And even within the fictional setting of the Trek Universe, not as much a reality as an ideal, much as we have today.
Oh, darn, I guess that means Star Trek isn’t Sci Fi after all.
Leviathan, if you don’t like BSG/Firefly whatever, for any reason, fine, don’t like it. But don’t make up reasons to say it’s bad sci fi, or not sci fi, because the producers and writers aren’t doing it the way you would. Personally, I consider it closed-minded to only see an emergency presidential succession ceremony occuring aboard a plane/spacecraft as an allegory for the LBJ succession.
Your comments on so-called mainstream drama also demonstrate that you fail to comprehend that the only thing that separetes sci fi from mundane stories is just the setting. Is Surface mainstream drama? Is Passions a mainstream soap? (I hope I got that right…what else would Spike watch?) Are Invasion and Threshold mainstream dramas? Or are they sci fi? Because based on what you’re saying, I can’t tell. You mention B5 as “good” sci fi…but the uniforms in B5 were straight out of a Janet Jackson video, and much of the clothing would have blended in nicely on most city streets (ok, maybe not the Vorlon robes). If your definition of Sci Fi means “things that you don’t see everyday,” then Buck Rogers, Land of the Lost, and Leave it to Beaver, not to mention Gilligan’s Island, would all qualify as sci fi.
But while that may be the Leviathan definition, that’s not what the rest of the world sees it as.
And what’s with the comment from the producers of V? Are they also producing BSG? Otherwise, you’re imposing the view of a big network from the 80s onto what most people consider to be some of the best TV sci fi to come along in a decade.
Question for Leviathan: As I said before, I agree with your criticisms of BG’s use of contemporary mannerisms, costumes, and props. However, I’m curious as to why you keep saying it isn’t science fiction. For all its flas, BG is still a show about space travel and the benefits and perils of advanced technology. The idea of people playing God by creating a new life and then having their creation turn around and bite them in the ášš is a classic SF trope.
So what is it that makes it not SF? That you don’t like it?
“That’s a bizarre leap to a straw-man argument. I want my sci-fi stories to Science Fiction. I want teh stories to require their science-fiction elements to be told at all. And I want them to make some kind of sense. Doctor Who, Star Trek, Babylon 5 — Hëll, even Lost In Space! — have all managed to do this and still tell stories that humans can comprehend.”
I’m really not sure what Leviathan is trying to say here. He was complaining first that the stories in BSG were too comparable to current of past human events…then he sites Doctor Who, Star Trek, and B5….three great shows that each used a sci fi setting to make commentary on…current or past human events?
I don’t think I’m making a straw man argument. Either Leviathan is generating reasons to not like BSG because it just doesn’t tickle his fancy, or he’s looking at sci fi to have, I don’t know, aliens? Because that’s about the only thing that BSG doesn’t have, when compared to those other genre shows. Unless you count the Cylons, which are kinda alien in that we’re not sure their motivations match up with human understanding, although it would seem that they, in fact, closely parallel human response.
I think the main “problem” with Larsen article is people didn’t read it.
Some people on here are assuming he’s bìŧçhìņg about:
Good creative runs on company owned characters. (He’s not. Erik loves Walt Simonson’s Thor just as much as you do).
People leaving a regular paycheck to do a work for hire job (He’s not, it was aimed at established freelancers).
People’s “misunderstandings” had fûçk all to do with his writing abilities. Erik was pretty straight foward and blunt with his message.
Leviathan wrote:
“The producer told him, “We don’t care about the Sci-Fi fans. We don’t have to. As long as we have spaceships and ray-guns, the Sci-Fi fans will watch. We just want to attract other viewers.”
That’s as may be, but what does that have to do with BG? Anything interview or statement I’ve read from Moore makes it clear that he loves the genre.
Me:
“Besides, there actually is more than a “slight gesture toward a semblance of culture,” or at least there was in the 3 episodes I’ve seen. At the heart of the battle with the Cylons, or example, is a religious conflict between monotheistic and polytheistic religions, with the good guys as polytheists. Can’t remember having seen that kind of thing, from that angle, in television science fiction before. “
Leviathan:
“That’s the thin coat of paint on the surface.”
Um, not really. Unless you’re only interested in the setting itself, I don’t see how something like that is just “a thin coat of paint.” I really do not understand where you’re coming from, sorry.
Leviathan:
“Because there’s way too much of it, down to the bonehead stuff that would be easy to fix.”
None of that has gotten in the way of my enjoyment of the show, so I don’t see it as anything that needs to be fixed. Your mileage may vary, I suppose.
Leviathan:
“We know it’s distant enough that (A) humankind has colonized a dozen worlds in different, distant solar systems, far out across the galaxy, and for those colonies to have forgotten us so completely that “Earth” is a half-forgotten legend more obscure to us than Atlantis. So we can safely assume a couple of thousand years, and, based on how obscure the “Earth” legend is, probably more like five or six thousand.”
Actually, we don’t know that at all. We don’t know what the mechanism of connection is, or which way the flow of humanity went. (Remember, Kobol’s considered to be the homeworld, Earth, one of the colonies.) Might even be some kind of parallel universe thing, who knows. It’s too soon to say.
“There isn’t the cultural diversity of a whole country.”
So far, we’ve seen only a fraction of the 50,000 survivors, which in turn were only a miniscule fraction of the total population of the 12 colonies. Most of the time, we’re with either the military or the President and her people. Given that we’ve seen only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction, why should we expect to have seen the whole tapestry of Colonial culture? (And how do we know how diverse it was?)
Leviathan:
“You can’t pick and choose what parts of the iconic image are communicated and what parts aren’t. It carries its emotional weight in toto. That’s what makes it iconic. You see LBJ being sworn in, and you see a country in crisis, and a small, venal, unworthy man stepping opportunistically into the shoes of a giant. It’s all of a piece. Straczynski understood that, re-staging the LBJ swearing-in with President Clarke on Babylon 5, and we immediately knew that the Earth Alliance was screwed, that this man was going to sell us down the river. BG doesn’t seem to want us to think that of its President, but put her in the same iconic position. That’s just inept storytelling.”
Hey, all props to B5, but I disagree that you can’t do something like what Moore did. Maybe he did attempt to “pick and choose what parts of the iconic image [were] communicated,” but it worked well enough for me. (Then again, maybe I’m just an inept audience member listening to an inept storyteller.)
Besides, part of the question posed by that image is: “Is this person up to the task that has been suddenly thrust upon them?” That’s a major part of President Roslin’s story arc, with that question hanging over her head. The audience knows it, the character know it, she knows it. That’s partly set up by Moore’s use of that iconic image. (Or in other words, there’s more than one way to skin an icon 🙂
Leviathan:
“Nothing is wrong with mainstream drama.But it’s not science fiction. A lot is wrong with derivative, unimaginive, mediocre mainstream drama, and none of it goes away when you set it aboard a spaceshiop, and being aboard a spaceship doesn’t make it SF.”
Unimaginative, mediocre, and derivative (in its perjorative sense) aren’t terms I’d apply to BG, sorry. Again, your mileage may vary, but from what I’ve seen, this is pretty good stuff.
Leviathan:
“This is one of the things that makes me crazy about the cultish love of the new BG.”
Well, I don’t know if I’m up to the cultish love level. My earlier remarks were based on three episodes from late in season 1 that were aired on TV. Since posting, I’ve only seen the mini and the first couple of episodes. Sure, I’m ready to rave about it now, but my initial impressions weren’t based on any kind of cultish love, or any kind of hype (I don’t have cable, don’t know anyone who watches it). BG’s _earned_ it’s good reputation in my book.
Leviathan:
“If you peeled the bogus SF veneer off of any part of the series, and set it in the here and now, we’d all think it was a pretty second-rate show. The president dealing with breast cancer while in conflict with a resentful military would be Lifetime TV’s knock-off of The West Wing, Baltar and whatsername would be “Body of Evidence Lite” and the combat storylines would be second-rate Black Sheep Squadron. Flying an aircar past the window doesn’t make it brilliant.”
Sorry, I disagree with this. If this was set in a non-sci fi setting, but everything else was kept the same, I’d still be interested. Like PAD said, part of what’s great about the show are the characters.
Leviathan:
“It’s not simply “not my cuppa tea.” It’s absolutely a case of people being paid huge amounts of money to do a job, not being willing to be bothered to do it. “
Still not seeing any real evidence for the “not being willing to be bothered to do it” charge.
Leviathan:
“but I notice that it’s bold and deliberate storytelling choice that saves them the trouble of thinking up something at all different, that lets them do their costuming at Chess King rather than hire a costume designer, lets them buy their props at Big Lots instead of designing abd building them. In short, it’s a bold and deliberate storytelling choice that lets them do everything the cheap and easy way.”
What’s wrong with that? Since when is the quality of a story or a series necessarily a matter of the amount of money thrown at it? (C’mon, you like Dr. Who, how can this matter to you?)
Leviathan:
“It’s not lazy? Then why did we see Colonel Tigh,in a major, important, character-defining scene, say,”Christ!”?
Nobody paid enough attention to see that it was there, or cared enough to do anything to make it right.”
Haven’t seen (or don’t remember seeing) that bit yet, but it doesn’t seem like that big a deal to me. If it’s a mistake, big whoop, it’s not like it brings the whole show crashing down. Unless you’re watching it looking to get ticked off by it. Compared to all the things they got right in the show, by my estimation, that’s a small thing.
Leviathan:
“And that’s every bit as much an act of contempt as a carpenter who accepts your money to build a cabinet, and doesn’t nail together the boards.”
Seems more like a carpenter was paid to build a chair, and built one that didn’t suit your tastes.
Sorry, man, not trying to be insulting or anything.
Stew Fyfe wrote:
“What’s wrong with mainstream drama? What’s wrong with setting some elements of it aboard a spaceship? How does that preclude it from being sci fi?”
Obviously, that precludes BSG from being “Sci-fi” in the same way that having noticable western elements stops Firefly from being sci-fi (an argument that I hear a lot).
Neither argument has any merit, of course. Does Leviathan want the show to have no drama? Or does he want writers to invent an all new kind of drama? My love of sci-fi stems from the fact that it provides different ways of telling teh same old stories, and it’s a constant reminder that human nature doesn’t change… whether you set the story on a fleet of ships that are all that’s left of Earth’s population or on a small cargo ship on the outskirts of the “civilized” world doesn’t matter. The story does. I’ve not watched BSG, but a lot of people I respect like the story well enough, and for that reason alone, I hope it lasts many many years (though if I could trade it for Firefly, I’d do so in a heartbeat).
ok..i’ll admit to not having read all of the messages in this thread (and i ain’t gonna)…so apologies if this has been addressed.
regardless of what Larsen’s message is…when did it become appropriate for a professional in a given industry to address the public like that?
Hey, I’m no prude. There are very few words that I haven’t used. But not at work. Not in a professional forum.
It just boggles my mind that one could be so unprofessional. Regardless of whether or not the title of the piece is One FAN’s View (or something similar)…larsen is still a known entity in the field. A person in a position of authority (whether deserving or not).
Really? Was nobody else appalled at the language given that this is a professional in a particular field addressing the public through a forum dedicated to that particular field (which, IMHO, makes it somewhat of a professional address)?
wow.
>>”And that’s every bit as much an act of contempt as a carpenter who accepts your money to build a cabinet, and doesn’t nail together the boards.”
>Seems more like a carpenter was paid to build a chair, and built one that didn’t suit your tastes.
Some of the finest pieces of woodwork I’ve seen don’t use nails at all, but pieces of wood that are fitted to lock together with one another. While it comes down to personal preference, I’d venture to say that it takes much more skill to work in this more traditional manner, than to hammer nails.
Fred
Leviathan:
“It’s not lazy? Then why did we see Colonel Tigh,in a major, important, character-defining scene, say, ‘Christ!’?“
I’m not a BSG viewer (I watch very little TV until it comes out on DVD), but I don’t see this being a big deal. How many people today utter swear words that mean nothing to them? I catch myself all the time uttering completely nonsensical swear words (or the few Japanese words that I picked up back when I was seriously trying to learn the language). The words don’t mean anything to me; they’re just expletives that I’ve picked up. Do you honestly believe that there’s absolutely no chance that the word “Christ” slipped down through the years?
“Leviathan:
“It’s not lazy? Then why did we see Colonel Tigh,in a major, important, character-defining scene, say, ‘Christ!’?””
Well, more than what Robin S said, how do we know what the producers are trying to tell us with that utterance? Something that obvious doesn’t get left in by mistake. This isn’t like the chariot drivers in Ben Hur wearing their Timex’s during the chariot scene, thinking they’d be too small to notice. By the time you get into the editing room with that scene, it’s a little late to go back and reshoot the entire thing. This is a single utterance, and even if it was ad-libed into the scene, it’d take all of 30 seconds to reshoot it. Or even less to dub in a more Gods of Kobol approriate declaration.
So, if it’s not a mistake, it must be intentional. And since the whole connection to Earth thing is one of the questions the show is following, it’s either a pretty sizable clue, or a glaring red hering.
Regarding the “Christ” comment:
The more I think about the show, the more I’m convinced that their legend about Earth is greatly garbled. We’ll likely find out that Earth is the lost homeworld, not the lost colony. The use of Earth’s zodiac as a representation of the Lords of Kobol clinches it for me. The LOK were probably the original colony leaders who were elevated to godhood by later generations. If I were to make a guess, I would say that the heart of the cylons hatred of the humans is that the robots know that humanity has rejected their earlier monotheistic (Judeo-Christian) religion for a polytheistic faith.
I still think there should have been changes in style of clothes, but it doesn’t fill me with the level of contempt that it does Leviathan.
“I still think there should have been changes in style of clothes, but it doesn’t fill me with the level of contempt that it does Leviathan.”
C’mon, Den. If you don’t change the style of the clothes, it’s obviously not science fiction.
I miss Buck Rogers’ jump suits. Or maybe I’d better say Col. Deering’s jump suits. Or even that plastic chest thing Hawk had, and the feathered hair.
“Or even that plastic chest thing Hawk had, and the feathered hair.”
Dude. Hawk’s hair defines true science fiction tonsorial choices. I just hope I have hair like that in the future.
Bobb: I’m partial to the jumpsuits that Jane Badler wore on ‘V’. Functional, futuristic, and tight as all hëll.
Gah, I forgot about those. And red is a much better color. And I bet they’re thermally insulated, given how they’re just big lizards and all.
I think I say the actor that played Hawk in one of those Truth ads recently. I think he wishes he had Hawks hair these days, too.
Say, shouldn’t we be seeing some Trek OS miniskirts any day now?
And the lizards had ray guns to go with their insulated jumpsuits. A show that just screams “I AM SCIENCE FICTION!”
It’s funny that Mr. Hobbes up there is so against “non-futurey” science fiction. Perhaps BSG and ‘Serenity’ could make the cut if everything was in chrome. I’m thinking of some of my favorite science fiction series and movies, and most of the ones that really appealed to me were the ones that had a future that I found to be a reasonable extrapolation of today’s society.
“Firefly” is most decidedly one of those (and for the record, “Serenity” kicks ášš). I would also include the movie of “Alien Nation” (didn’t particularly care for the series, but really enjoyed the novelizations – and I’m including yours in this, PAD, even though you had the temerity to work on something that wasn’t creator owned). I think science fiction on TV is much harder to pull off. I never really enjoyed Star Trek of any sort (although I did appreciate the hostile dynamic on DS9 for the first few seasons), and I was as much a fanboy of anyone when it came to Star Wars.
I think the issue at hand with fiction of any sort is pretty simple: Does the story have characters you care about? There was a very brief debate about “Deadwood” on another thread, claiming it was one of the best-written shows on TV. That may be, but I don’t give two šhìŧš about any of the characters, and I’ve watched the first five episodes.
What sucked me into ‘Firefly’ was that I was instantly interested in the characters of Mal and Zoe. Whedon’s gift (in my mind) is his ability to tell you almost all you need to know about a character within the first few lines of dialogue out of that character’s mouth. Not many writers can do that.
I’ve not seen BSG, but would like to. Unfortunately for me and my aged mind, trying to remember to watch any series on a weekly basis is almost impossible (I’m giving myself bonus points for actually watching “Lost” two weeks in a row). What I have seen on BSG, which annoyed the šhìŧ out of me, was the camera work.
And I bet they’re thermally insulated, given how they’re just big lizards and all.
Actually, being cold-blooded, lizards wouldn’t get any benefit from a thermally insulated suit. We mammals have internal heat sources and insulation gives us the benefit of being able to better retain our body heat. Lizards have no internal body heat, so they could walk around in an insulated suit and still freeze to death.
Of course, maybe the suits had an internal heat source to warm them in cold temperatures.
Oh and Erin Grey in a jump suit = only redeeming quality of Buck Rogers.
Oh and Erin Grey in a jump suit = only redeeming quality of Buck Rogers.
That’s only because you never heard my uncle’s imitation of Twiki.
“Of course, maybe the suits had an internal heat source to warm them in cold temperatures.”
Naturally, I assumed that a race sophisticated enough to develop giant flying saucers and neato shades would include suit heaters.
That’s only because you never heard my uncle’s imitation of Twiki.
And if I’m lucky, I never will. 😛
Naturally, I assumed that a race sophisticated enough to develop giant flying saucers and neato shades would include suit heaters.
IRRC, the shades were useless against using mirrors to reflect light in their faces, so I wouldn’t be so sure.
I don’t know, man. For an intrinsically unfunny guy, that was a hilarious imitation.
“IRRC, the shades were useless against using mirrors to reflect light in their faces, so I wouldn’t be so sure.”
How can you say that? They had frickin’ lasers!
i think there is a legitimate distinction to be made between “hard sci-fi” and most of the sci-fi we see, much of which could be termed space opera.
Philip K. Ðìçk is an excellent example of hard sci-fi.
Dr Who certainly had its hard sci-fi moments, but a lot of it was adventure/mystery stories on different planets/different times.
i really enjoy good hard sci-fi. i also really enjoy good space opera.
an excellent hard sci-fi story would be nigh impossible to change to another setting. i don’t think this makes it a lesser work.
trying to say that hard sci-fi is better than soft sci-fi or vice versa puts one dangerously close to those people who would argue that “realistic” drama is inherently superiour to sci-fi/fantasy/horror.
btw, Larsen is a prìçk.
Posted by Rex Hondo at October 4, 2005 06:43 AM
[I wrote:]
PAD Notes:
“Unforgiven,” on the other hand, could easily be shifted to an outer space venue without a hitch.
Yes, but it still wouldn’t have been Science Fiction.
Actually, it would.
science fiction
n.
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
You’ve found an incorrect definition. If your story doesn’t require “speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets,” etc. in order to work, it isn’t science fiction.
And, if the story is about robots bent on destroying humanity as they pursue them in spaceships, how again is that not SF? I might agree that, as indestructibleman said, it’s not hard SF, but it’s still SF.
It just seems readily apparent that your definition of “not SF” is “anything I don’t like.”
Main Entry: science fiction
Function: noun
: fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component
That’s from Webster’s. Not that I expect Leviathan to provide anything concrete, but care to tell us who defines sci fi as requiring “speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets,” etc. in order to work?”
Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 08:49 AM
I think I get Leviathan now. Y’see, as Rex points out, it’s not the stories that make sci fi what it is, it’s the setting.
No, Bob, it’s the stories. Not the three-word abstraction that all stories can be thematically described with, just the stories. And it’s perfectly simple: If your story could be told without SF tropes, it isn’t science fiction.
If only surface or background details differentiate your story from a Lifetime TV movie about breast cancer, or West Wing episode, or Black Sheep Squadron, it’s not science fiction.
No, Bob, it’s the stories. Not the three-word abstraction that all stories can be thematically described with, just the stories. And it’s perfectly simple: If your story could be told without SF tropes, it isn’t science fiction.
If only surface or background details differentiate your story from a Lifetime TV movie about breast cancer, or West Wing episode, or Black Sheep Squadron, it’s not science fiction.
So, what (in your mind) qualifies as science fiction?
Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 11:37 AM
Well, more than what Robin S said, how do we know what the producers are trying to tell us with that utterance?
Because Moore said, “That was an ad-lib by the actor, I didn’t know about it until it went on the air.”
So he cares so much about the show that he let one of the first episodes air without even watching all of it.
“Because Moore said, “That was an ad-lib by the actor, I didn’t know about it until it went on the air.””
And he said that where?
Jamie Coville: “I think the main “problem” with Larsen article is people didn’t read it.”
See, now that’s just the point I was alluding to eariler… When you’re making an argument, you’re attempting to persuade people to come over to your way of thinking. There are several ways to do this, including supporting your arguments with facts, couching your arguments in a manner palatable to your audience, and being aware of the opposition’s arguments while making your arguments better than theirs.
Larsen did none of the above; pìššìņg øff your audience by calling them names and disparaging their point of view does nothing to win people’s support for your cause. In fact, depending on the venom in the delivery, it can make people actively disbeleive everything you say, simply because you’re so offensive. Yeah, Larsen was blunt and straightforward with his message, but that bluntness of delivery also happened to obliterate whatever message he was trying to get across, because now you’re insulted by how he’s speaking to you. Jamie, you may see such abuse as a good argumentative tactic because it raises eyebrows and grabs your attention, but after a while you become the boy who cries wolf… all you have is bluster without backup.
So don’t tell me I misread Larsen’s column… if Larsen can’t get his point across because he’s too busy trying to be offensive, that’s *his* fault, and not *mine*. It’s the writer’s responsibility to get the thought out of their head and into mine clearly, and that goes double on editorial or opinion pieces like columns… and if you can’t do that, maybe you don’t need to write that particular column. Write one on how peas taste yummy instead, or something; I don’t know, I’m not Erik Larsen.
(Oops. Apparently I still have much to learn about HTML tags. Sorry, all.)
Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 11:37 AM
Well, more than what Robin S said, how do we know what the producers are trying to tell us with that utterance?
Because Moore said, “That was an ad-lib by the actor, I didn’t know about it until it went on the air.”
So he cares so much about the show that he let one of the first episodes air without even watching all of it.
Posted by: Bobb at October 4, 2005 03:37 PM
“Because Moore said, “That was an ad-lib by the actor, I didn’t know about it until it went on the air.””
And he said that where?
If the comment is about Tigh saying “Jesus” during the pilot of BSG then, if I recall correctly, it was made on Moore’s blog at the Battlestar Galactica webpage. Moore explained that the line managed to slp through because 1) It was a minor detail (i.e. not unlike the numerous continuity goofs that can be found in just about every movie ever made) and 2) There countless more important production matters that distracted from it. The producer didn’t catch, the director didn’t catch it, the editors didn’t catch it…probably because it is such an overused term that the flub slipped past. Not unlike how Mark Hamill evidently called our “Carrie!” instead of “Leia!” at the end of Star Wars. Or so I have heard that he did.
Posted by: Stew Fyfe at October 4, 2005 10:31 AM
Me:
“Besides, there actually is more than a “slight gesture toward a semblance of culture,” or at least there was in the 3 episodes I’ve seen. At the heart of the battle with the Cylons, or example, is a religious conflict between monotheistic and polytheistic religions, with the good guys as polytheists. Can’t remember having seen that kind of thing, from that angle, in television science fiction before. “
Leviathan:
“That’s the thin coat of paint on the surface.”
Um, not really. Unless you’re only interested in the setting itself, I don’t see how something like that is just “a thin coat of paint.” I really do not understand where you’re coming from, sorry.
There’s no depth to the Colonial’s polythesitic system, nor the Cylon’s monotheistic system. You could re-name them Catholic and Protestant, change a few lines of dialogue, and tell the same story.
Leviathan:
“We know it’s distant enough that (A) humankind has colonized a dozen worlds in different, distant solar systems, far out across the galaxy, and for those colonies to have forgotten us so completely that “Earth” is a half-forgotten legend more obscure to us than Atlantis. So we can safely assume a couple of thousand years, and, based on how obscure the “Earth” legend is, probably more like five or six thousand.”
Actually, we don’t know that at all. We don’t know what the mechanism of connection is, or which way the flow of humanity went. (Remember, Kobol’s considered to be the homeworld, Earth, one of the colonies.) Might even be some kind of parallel universe thing, who knows. It’s too soon to say.
We do know that the split between the 12 Colonies and Earth happened long enough ago that “Earth” is a near-forgotten legend. We also know that, if our life on this Earth was founded by the survivers of that ragtag fugitive fleet, it was long enough ago that we don’t remember them at all — Except Glen Larsen, of course.
So the times I was talking about still work.
“There isn’t the cultural diversity of a whole country.”
So far, we’ve seen only a fraction of the 50,000 survivors, which in turn were only a miniscule fraction of the total population of the 12 colonies. Most of the time, we’re with either the military or the President and her people. Given that we’ve seen only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction, why should we expect to have seen the whole tapestry of Colonial culture? (And how do we know how diverse it was?)
What we see is what we get. What we see is modern-day LA. If they go on to show enough to make it modern-day USA, what of it? They’re still asking me to believe that an extrasolar civilization that’s been parted from us for millenia will have a culture exactly like our own.
Leviathan:
“You can’t pick and choose what parts of the iconic image are communicated and what parts aren’t. It carries its emotional weight in toto. That’s what makes it iconic. You see LBJ being sworn in, and you see a country in crisis, and a small, venal, unworthy man stepping opportunistically into the shoes of a giant. It’s all of a piece. Straczynski understood that, re-staging the LBJ swearing-in with President Clarke on Babylon 5, and we immediately knew that the Earth Alliance was screwed, that this man was going to sell us down the river. BG doesn’t seem to want us to think that of its President, but put her in the same iconic position. That’s just inept storytelling.”
Hey, all props to B5, but I disagree that you can’t do something like what Moore did.
I didn’t say you can’t film a scene re-creating a famous historical one. I said you can’t limit what the recreation brings to the audience to just those elements that you want it to convey. Which you can, of course, if you simply create a significantly different kind of scene in its place. Of course, writing your own material is harder…
Leviathan:
“It’s not simply “not my cuppa tea.” It’s absolutely a case of people being paid huge amounts of money to do a job, not being willing to be bothered to do it. “
Still not seeing any real evidence for the “not being willing to be bothered to do it” charge.
Just look at the “ad lib” nobody caught below:
Leviathan:
“but I notice that it’s bold and deliberate storytelling choice that saves them the trouble of thinking up something at all different, that lets them do their costuming at Chess King rather than hire a costume designer, lets them buy their props at Big Lots instead of designing abd building them. In short, it’s a bold and deliberate storytelling choice that lets them do everything the cheap and easy way.”
What’s wrong with that? Since when is the quality of a story or a series necessarily a matter of the amount of money thrown at it? (C’mon, you like Dr. Who, how can this matter to you?)
It’s not how much cash is thrown, it’s how much effort. Doctor Who proves that ingenuity and effort can overcome the tiniest of budgets, and produce innovation. BG proves that no amount of money can overcome the lack of ambition to innovate.
Leviathan:
“It’s not lazy? Then why did we see Colonel Tigh,in a major, important, character-defining scene, say,”Christ!”?
Nobody paid enough attention to see that it was there, or cared enough to do anything to make it right.”
Haven’t seen (or don’t remember seeing) that bit yet, but it doesn’t seem like that big a deal to me. If it’s a mistake, big whoop, it’s not like it brings the whole show crashing down. Unless you’re watching it looking to get ticked off by it. Compared to all the things they got right in the show, by my estimation, that’s a small thing.
So how big does a mistake have to be before it’s worth catching? What does it tell us that nobody even bothered? The problem isn’t that it’s a series-destroying mistake, the problem is that it was an obvious one that could have been fixed easily in many different parts of the process, and nobody cared enough to bother, or even notice, until it was on the air.
Leviathan:
“And that’s every bit as much an act of contempt as a carpenter who accepts your money to build a cabinet, and doesn’t nail together the boards.”
Seems more like a carpenter was paid to build a chair, and built one that didn’t suit your tastes.
Only if the chair doesn’t suit my tastes because the legs aren’t really attached, and if you try to sit in it you’ll fall down and get a boo-boo.
Getting back to Larson:
Reading his article, I get that he may have thought he was challenging his peers to create more original characters rather than let the industry stagnate on the same old, same old. But, as Brakyellar and others have said, in doing so, he:
Insulted other creators for doing work-for-hire instead of creator-owned materials.
Insulted readers for buying company owned characters than supporting creator-owned characters.
I realize that Larson, like many of the other Image founders, doesn’t believe that he writers are necessary, but if you really want to affect change in the industry, you can’t start by insulting the very people you are trying to persuade.
Is he right that the comics industry needs to broaden the diversity of its product beyond the handful of characters that dominate the big two? Sure, but after his obnoxious attitude towards fans and other creators, who cares?
Larson isn’t the only creator who thinks it’s clever to be write articles insulting his own audience. I’ve noticed others who have written articles with a similar tone. I don’t get how people who make their living telling stories don’t understand how to communicate without being obnoxious.
I’m just a poor, dumb retired Sergeant so business things like contracts and customer service and shipping and things of that nature make my head spin. So, I was wondering if there is a comics industry agreement that, when a book has to be shipped late, is it then mandatory that it ship under the IMAGE imprint? I’m just wondering since they have so much experience in that area, you know, shipping late.
BrakYeller: “Just a quick thought for all the Larsen defenders out there: when your fandom has to come to your defense to explain to people what you really meant…”
Feel free to assume that I give a crap about Larsen’s work or the man himself. I do not. I merely think there’s a point worth discussing surrounded by lots of people having fun insulting each other. Ripping Larsen a new one is not constructive. Larsen doing the same is as well. It’s a waste of time. Talk about something that matters.
Alex: “I think anyone who took the time to write a well thought out response to Erik’s article is an idiot (or at the very least acting like one for the moment).”
Thank you. Ever so kind.
Charlie Griefer: “Was nobody else appalled at the language given that this is a professional in a particular field addressing the public through a forum dedicated to that particular field (which, IMHO, makes it somewhat of a professional address)?”
I was not. Professionals are people just like anyone else. Let em rant and rave if they feel like it.
Bob Jones: “I’m just a poor, dumb retired Sergeant so business things like contracts and customer service and shipping and things of that nature make my head spin. So, I was wondering if there is a comics industry agreement that, when a book has to be shipped late, is it then mandatory that it ship under the IMAGE imprint? I’m just wondering since they have so much experience in that area, you know, shipping late.”
Are you kidding? Do you really think Marvel, DC, Dark Horse, and every other publisher doesn’t also have late books?
Up above, Leviathan makes some points about the new Galactica, and things that don’t make it science fiction. The best science fiction isn’t that which makes a point of saying it’s science fiction, it’s that which makes you forget that it’s science fiction. Define for us science fiction as a genre, please. One of the things with good sci-fi is that it lends itself to drama, comedy, suspense, whatever. When I watch a show, do I care about the production values and the characters’s costumes? A little, but mostly because I work in TV and want to see what other people are doing. First and foremost, however, I care about the characters and the story. Show me one decent science fiction story out there that can’t be told in another genre. Don’t get all hung up on labels, lest you get one hung on yourself.
Oh, and, speaking as someone who works in TV, who has produced a few things in my time and who knows how much time and effort it takes to do just a five-minute music video let alone an hour of TV, you really don’t have the time to watch the final product in more than a perfunctory way. Tell us, oh Grand Opiner Leviathan, just how many things have you yourself produced?
Hi. I found this through another comics thread and I’ve been drawn into the BSG debate, mainly because I watched the opening mini-series and a friend of mine wants to do a marathon of the first season.
I didn’t really care very much about any of the characters on what I saw of BSG*, only the situations they were in. The new president has potential, but I’ll see where they go with her.
I have to agree wholeheartedly with Leviathan on the inexplicably contemporary trappings being absolutely frustrating. It’s not just that the culture in BSG has, say, coffee mugs or pens or what not. Little things like that make sense. It’s the degree and frequency with which some of the bigger similarities to our culture occur that turns me off their universe. I would have liked at least a few token nods at making things different after the centuries have gone by. And seriously, I mean token. Make up a different card game other than poker, give your military ranks different titles, structure things just a *bit* off and I’d be happy. It DOES feel like lazy writing, to me, when they keep those sort of things the same (Whether or not it really is lazy scripting or a deliberate choice on the part of the writers, I can’t presume to know).
Comparing BSG’s costumes/technology/culture/etc… to those in Star Trek and Babylon 5 is a little disingenous. Those shows had militaries based out of Earth and its living culture. The colonies in BSG have been centuries, maybe even millenia removed. To me, the problem is that the show’s internal logic is stretched almost to the breaking point. I don’t think important question here is “Is BSG sci-fi” but rather “Is BSG *believable*?”
I know it may seem silly, but for the most part you need to be able to suspend your disbelief with any sci-fi or fantasy story over the parts you know aren’t real. So long as something can be explained away logically somehow, whether by technology or culturally or whatever, a viewer doesn’t have to worry about it. BSG doesn’t quite do it for me on that point.
Let’s take “All aliens speak English in some sci-fi stuff. That’s just as crazy as anything on BSG!” as an example. The thing is you can make a blanket excuse for those aliens in some settings. Maybe (like in B5, although there were a handful of species that used mechanical translators) they’re in a place built and staffed by humans that also speak English, so most of them have learned English as a courtesy or just to get by. Maybe, like in Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, someone’s discovered a handy universal translator. So long as it’s explained away somehow, you can accept it and not have it niggle the back of your mind for the rest of the show.
But BSG (at least in the miniseries) didn’t do anything to explain away the similarities in language and government and so on**. To me, it’s not a logically consistent universe. In that sense, it made the drama, the excitement, the danger of the show feel a little lame because every so often I’d be jolted out of if and go “What? They’re either not from earth or they’ve been gone thousands of years. That makes no god dámņ sense.” Which is a shame, because as a sci-fi/military thriller where the people had recent or ongoing ties to earth that made their earth-like culture make *sense*, I’d eat the series up with a spoon. But I can’t believe in the universe they’ve set up wholeheartedly, and that’s a shame.
*Especially that little girl in one of the colonies that was being left behind to be devestated by the Cylons because they couldn’t get them out in time. Holy manipulative trying-to-tug on my heartstrings. Yeah, I know she was onscreen in the miniseries for all of 2 minutes but bear with me. It’s all I’ve seen so far.
**Really, the biggest difference was in the religion mentioned at the end, which seemed to have very little, if any, impact in how people acted during day to day life compared to how they do in the mainly montheistic USA today. That really disapointed me, since a wildly different religion would or should mean a different set of values, social structure, etc…and I’d love to see the ramifications of that.
A couple of quick points, Sylv…
Make up a different card game other than poker,
They did. It’s called “Pyramid,” and is a throwback to the original series.
give your military ranks different titles, structure things just a *bit* off and I’d be happy.
While the titles are culled from Earth military, the structure is – and has been since the original series – “just a *bit* off” from Earth military rank structure.
“Not unlike how Mark Hamill evidently called our “Carrie!” instead of “Leia!” at the end of Star Wars. Or so I have heard that he did.”
No, he didn’t. I know. He’s a friend and I asked him.
PAD
Well,now I’m glad I lost the post I was working on (due to an 877 caller and a faulty modem), since the posts which have shown up since I started are interesting. I had several things to say even before that, since I skipped the internet for one day and 150+ posts showed up ….
First off – I thought I had read that popular myth about Star Wars disputed before; cool that PAD can give it to use straight from the horse’s mouth 🙂
Walt Simonson – I still consider him THE Thor writer, but, while I liked his art on Thor, I’m aonther who didn’t like his art as much on X-Factor – less and less as it went on ….
Glad to hear others starting to say that they liked “The Train Job”. In retrospect, it may have had a little too much of the Western angle for the first exposure of everyone to the show; but personally I like it as well as many other episodes, probably better than a few. Besides the above-mentioned engine-ing, it features favorite lines such as Zoe’s “Sir, I think you have a problem with your brain being missing.”
I think insiderman has a good point; the whole definition of “science fiction”, and people’s varying interpretations of that – one’s “science fiction” may be another’s “soft SF”, one may only consider one definition to be SF at all, etc – may be getting in the way here. And arguing about whether Battlestar is or isn’t science fiction appears to be getting in the way of some good points Leviathan is making.
I was going to defend Leviathan as I could see a point in his(or her) comments and s/he appeared to be getting ganged up on. But, as others, including sylv and I believe Den earlier have seen the same problem, I’ll just add my agreement. For this civilization, so far removed in time and/or space from us that Earth is a barely remembered and largely unknown legend, to have so many specific facets of our current culture present is like making a film about the (American) Civil War with all of the soldiers in green camos and firing M-16s. It’s like if there had been no explanation for the gangster era-patterned world they came across on the original Star Trek – parallel evolution extended to incedulity-breaking lengths. Now, it may ultimately turn out that there is, possibly, an explanation for this – though it’s an overdue one, I’d say – but at the moment the fact that these colonies appear to be living largely in, as Leviathan said, LA 2005 culture, is jarringly distracting and seems indiciative of poor conception, and I can see how Leviathan could conclude that it was caused by lazy writing.
Now, I haven’t been able to watch enough of the series to try to dispute the opinions of its fans – the most I can say is that I tried to watch it on several occasions and never felt compelled to continue for long. But clearly Leviathan has watched it, and researched it, and has said that he previously enjoyed Ron Moore’s work; and I can see how s/he could take the setting problems, combined with other difficulties like apparent carelessness and indifference in editing, and be frustrated that a show is being acclaimed which s/he found so disappointing and cynical in its “SF”. Like I said, I’m not going to argue that it’s not a worthwhile show with those who enjoy it and have seen far more of it than I; but I feel that Leviathan, and others, are making valid points which shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
To return to the start – of this thread-hijacking – I’m not really trying to prove Firefly’s “superiority”, Jonathan (the other one)(not sure if you were addressing me, but Leviathan really hasn’t said much about Firefly, and your post was right after mine) – just taking issue with the words you put in my mouth by saying
“but I think WE can agree that BSG is MARKEDLY BETTER as science fiction, and as television,” (caps mine); as I, among others, clearly, don’t agree that it’s BETTER. As I’ve said, I haven’t seen all of BSG, so – while I have pointed out the problems I had with it – I won’t presume to judge its worth. I can live with “separate but equal” so long as no one is trying to say that _I_ called BSG a “markedly better” work than Firefly 🙂
And, nytwyng wrote:
“With Firefly, the characters are the thing for me. The story – in and of itself – serves to allow me to spend time with these people and informs their own personal stories. I am emotionally invested in them. (And, anyone sitting near me during Serenity the other night could have seen as such. “I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.”)”
Right there with you, buddy. Right there with you 😉 🙁
Luke K Walsh
RE: Leviathan
Personally, none of my issues with his/her/whatever’s posts have anything to do with Levi’s not liking BSG. Levi can dislike BSG all day long and into the night.
My only issue has been the repeated assertations that not only is BSG not SF, but that it’s complete and utter crap and anyone who likes it has been “duped” into doing so. And, really, it’s only the last bit that I take issue with. I have no problem with anyone not liking the show, or thinking that it’s “Not really SF *sniff*”. It’s when they move from the realm of having an opinion to believing that that opinion is rock-solid fact, and therefore anyone who dares dispute this Holy Truth is a poor victim of a ‘con job’. If only they could be made to see the Truth…
If you don’t like a show, fine. If you don’t like a show to the degree that it pains you that others do, then I humbly submit that you’re spending far too much time and energy on it…
I feel I should also add that I had many of the same reactions to the contemporary culture elements of BSG, particularly during the miniseries. People walking around Caprica wearing suits and ties, pushing strollers. The Vipers being called ‘planes’. The lack of laser weaponry.It all bugged me.
But I was intrigued enough by the first ep to stick with the mini all the way. And, honestly, I had mixed emotions even at the end of the mini. There were many parts I liked, and almost as many that I was unsure of. But I had enough of the former that when it was announced that it was going to series, I decided to check it ouot. (Besides, as a Stargate fan, I was already going to be watching SciFi Fri night anyway, so I might as well hang around for another hour and give it a shot.)
I found that BSG developed into what I think is one of the finest shows on TV at the moment, not just finest SF shows, but finest period. The things that once bothered me, I know actually like, as part of the mosaic of the world that they have developed.
Are there imperfections? Of course there are. That’s part and parcel of every human endevour. There hasn’t been a show that’s ever not had them. Does that mean that the people involved don’t care? If we were to accept that hypothesis, we’d have to think that every production team on every show that ever there was felt the same way. No, it’s just a feature of anything created by people.
Now do I think that everyone has to love the show as much as I do? Not at all. Everyone’s tastes are different, and personally, I think it’d be an awfully dreary world if everyone liked the same things. I just try to respect other’s opinions when I can (so long as those opinions don’t include the notion that I’m a duped victim for not agreeing with them *g*), and I’d take it as a kindness if others would do the same…
(What? I never said I didn’t like Firefly too… *g*)
give your military ranks different titles, structure things just a *bit* off and I’d be happy.
Actually they do. In the US navy, a captain outranks a commander. On BSG, it’s the other way around. And the rank of colonel doesn’t belong in the navy at all.
but I feel that Leviathan, and others, are making valid points which shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
As someone who also agrees with some of his points, I can say that I’m dismissing them out of hand, but I don’t see how just because the show has flaws, that means it “isn’t SF” or that anyone who does enjoy it despite the flaws is being “duped.”
Quite frankly, that attitude smacks of elitism, an “either you like what I like or you’re fool” kind of attitude.
That I can’t agree with.
Oh man, that… that was beautiful. I’ve always loved your writing (especially Supergirl, wow!) and now I respect you as a person. I’ve been reading immature comments about this VERY immature (and very, very whiney) “article” and yours is the first that actually hit it on the head and hit it well.
I love comics so, so much and they’ve helped me through some incredibly hard times in my life recently. But then I’ll go online to talk to my fellow fans, and I see so much displaced negativity. Sharing opinions is one thing, raging & whining about peoples tastes and choice of reading material just boggles my mind. Especially stooping to that kind of language and jock-bully routine of talking big to make yourself seem somehow right in your crazy idea is amazing. That a full grown man and a published writer would lack any kind of clarity, taste and tact makes me feel kinda bad for him.
I started out in this medium with ‘indie’ creator-created comics, but I never looked down on the people who loved anything Wolverine was in- and I never will. Today I enjoy both big superhero comics and little homemade ‘zines, and I love them all equally. If it’s quality, it’s quality- it doesn’t matter if it originated with that writer or not. Mr. Erik the viking might want to take a second look at his priorities, and ask himself why this very small non-issue enrages him so.
Apologies for contributing to the thread hijacking. Should be the last one from me, I hope.
Leviathan:
“There’s no depth to the Colonial’s polythesitic system, nor the Cylon’s monotheistic system. You could re-name them Catholic and Protestant, change a few lines of dialogue, and tell the same story.”
Not really, no. As far as the depth of either system is concerned, I’m expecting that to be explored, to a degree over the course of the series.
Leviathan:
“What we see is what we get. What we see is modern-day LA. If they go on to show enough to make it modern-day USA, what of it? “
Not the point I was trying to make, actually. Apologies for being unclear. My initial point was that I just couldn’t understand why you felt it was necessarily LA in space. Because of the buildings used in the Helo/Caprica scenes? (I’m pretty sure it’s filmed in Vancouver, anyways, so shouldn’t that be “B.C. in space”, and who cares if they show enough to make it modern-day Canada? 🙂
My point in the quote above was that it’s not surprising we’ve only seen a small part of the diversity of Colonial culture, USA-like or otherwise.
Leviathan:
“They’re still asking me to believe that an extrasolar civilization that’s been parted from us for millenia will have a culture exactly like our own.”
I still think this is an unresolved plot point, and the relative time frames are open to speculation. Nothing wrong with that for the time being. No worse, for example, than various characters on Farscape pointing to the remarkable similarities between humans and Sebaceans without having that question be resolved til Peacekeeper Wars years later.
Leviathan:
“I didn’t say you can’t film a scene re-creating a famous historical one. I said you can’t limit what the recreation brings to the audience to just those elements that you want it to convey. “
Seemed more like you were saying that the audience will necessarily have one particular reading of an historically grounded iconic image, and that the only proper use of such images are those which take into account something close to a one-to-one correspondence between the original, historical event and the new, fictional event. That’s what I read from your lauding of JMS’s use of reference to the same historical moment in B5.
In other words, if Moore is guilty of assuming that the audience won’t read further connections between Roslin and LBJ, and that Moore is at fault for not expecting that the audience will expect Roslin to be as bad a president as LBJ, than JMS is just as guilty for assuming that the audience will make those connections, and won’t stop at the more immediate sense of the historical image which I described earlier.
(Not that I believe that either Moore or JMS made a bad choice in alluding to LBJ’s swearing in – it works to different effects in the two different series. For me, at least.)
Apologies if the above is not what you meant, but that’s how it read to me.
Leviathan:
“Which you can, of course, if you simply create a significantly different kind of scene in its place. Of course, writing your own material is harder…”
So you’re saying JMS screwed up or was, ahem, lazy in his staging of Clarke’s swearing in.
Leviathan:
“Just look at the “ad lib” nobody caught below.”
Yes, because only lazy people filled with contempt for their audiences make mistakes.
Leviathan:
“It’s not how much cash is thrown, it’s how much effort.”
Yeah, you’re right. Doesn’t seem like a lot of effort went into BG. Bunch of slackers.
Leviathan:
“Doctor Who proves that ingenuity and effort can overcome the tiniest of budgets, and produce innovation.”
On its good days, perhaps. Not always though.
“BG proves that no amount of money can overcome the lack of ambition to innovate.”
If you’re looking for innovation in surface details (oh look, clocks, ties, phones), maybe.
Leviathan (on the Christ thing):
“So how big does a mistake have to be before it’s worth catching?”
Bigger than that, at least.
Leviathan:
“What does it tell us that nobody even bothered? The problem isn’t that it’s a series-destroying mistake, the problem is that it was an obvious one that could have been fixed easily in many different parts of the process, and nobody cared enough to bother, or even notice, until it was on the air.”
Still doesn’t seem like a big deal to me. It’s a small mistake, easily fixable or otherwise. They happen, in art and in life. If you want to see the utterance of a single out of continuity word as dámņáblÿ symptomatic of systemic laziness and contempt, I’m sure nothing I say at this point can dissuade you.
Leviathan:
“Only if the chair doesn’t suit my tastes because the legs aren’t really attached, and if you try to sit in it you’ll fall down and get a boo-boo.”
This here chair’s doing a fine, fine job of supporting me, no boo-boos here.
Seriously, though. If you don’t like the show, cool enough. It’s pretty clear, from what some others have posted, that the “anachronisms” (not quite the right term, but close enough), are distracting for some other viewers as well. Would the show be better if they changed more of the props? Maybe. For viewers such as yourself, definitely. For me, not really. The core premise has enough of an out that I’m willing to suspend my disbelief.
And I’ve seen enough lame sci fi shows where the creators/show-runners/what-have-yous have created doodads and whatzits even settings that are different, and even occasionally innovative, but haven’t come up with compelling characters or narratives that might make use of such trappings. (For me, that would characterize Star Trek when it’s at its nadir – forehead aliens, anyone?) I’d rather watch something like BG where the creators, crew, cast, etc. have focused on telling compelling stories about interesting characters that make me want to keep watching, episode to episode.
Like I’ve said before, your mileage may vary. But I just can’t buy into the “they’re lazy, you’re duped” argument (TLYD for short?).
Put it another way. I think Firefly was a decent show that had some potential, but the existing episodes are kinda overrated by genre fans. I liked some of the characters a lot(“I am a leaf” indeed), but found others to be Whedon cliches, if well-executed and well-acted ones. There were some good eps, and some bad ones. (I’m in the anti-Train Robbery camp. It’s the reason I didn’t watch the series when it was on the air.) Sometimes, when it’s at its worst, I find Whedon’s writing (or the writing for his shows) to be really irritating. I have similar, stronger really, feelings about Buffy, which I’ve never been able to get into, try though I have.
Clearly, both shows work better for a lot of people than they do for me. (Or in the case of Buffy, it works for others, but doesn’t work at all for me.) Nevertheless, I don’t think that the people who do like them have been duped, handed gold-lacquered manure, sold the Brooklyn Bridge, or forced to sit on collapsible chairs. Just because I don’t like the cut of the Emperor’s suit, don’t mean he’s out strutting in the buff.
In the opposite direction, I think Deadwood’s probably the best thing on television right now, with incredibly compelling characters and stories, told with great style and panache, and I don’t get how people can think otherwise, but they do. And that’s just the way it is.
Anyhoo, enjoyed the debate. You’ve really spurred me on to watch more of the series, and I’ve moved from liking it to loving it and becoming a real BG fan, so thanks, I guess. Peace.
(And lest I get flamed by Whedon fans, Angel was a fantastic show, and Serenity was close to perfect.)