Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
A challenge: Defend SD.net!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boris: [QB] Isn't it sick that how Roddenberry destroyed the capitalism of TOS, the use of money, the conflicts between characters? He didn't care much about staying consistent with the show, a product by him and many different writers and producers (Gene Coon had pretty much taken over later on), and made it into what only he thought it should be in his old days. And whereas Saxton is trying to stay consistent with what was seen onscreen, Roddenberry wasn't even trying to show how TOS turned into TNG. People do this all the time. There've been numerous cases where people took stupid stories that were never meant to be analyzed closely and made them into more interesting ones. Look at the comic "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" or the first two Batman movies and compare those to the Batman TV show or some of the 40s-60s comics. The DKR and the movies went wholly into the psychology of Bruce Wayne (why does such a rich, normal guy have the obsession of wearing a bat-cape at night and fighting crime?) As a result, DKR is an interesting story in its own right. The movie "Mission: Impossible" broke the formula of the old show and chose to reveal the characters behind the mission, thus also creating an interesting story. One could argue that one could've made interesting stories in the old format likewise, but that's a creative choice, a kind of risk that Babylon 5 is taking all the time. JMS loves to set up seemingly simplistic stories and then turn everything upside down precisely by putting together the little background details that were never meant to be seen closely. And then if you go back and rewatch the original episodes, you can see the clues that led to the drastic shift. Of course, most of these turns were planned out beforehand. But not all. DS9 did some of this with respect to the details of TNG, but not to such an extent. I don't believe Saxton is trying to prove any sick views -- he's just looking at the show closely and drawing uncomfortable conclusions, although one could argue that he's interested in certain topics because of his profession, his political and other personal views, etc., but so is everyone. It's a way of creating derivative fiction, but it has been done before, even by Lucas. One might have said that "The Empire Strikes Back" was sick for perverting the original, comparably simplistic Star Wars movie by making Darth Vader Luke's father (this doesn't seem to have been planned). But it gave the entire story a whole another level. BTW, I'm not saying that Saxton is imposing his views like Roddenberry -- what I'm saying is that imposing a new view or creating a story based on an overanalysis of old are two valid methods of creating new stories in a certain universe. Boris [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3