starfire11: (Default)
I keep hearing this (mainly from my Mom and my sister, but I keep hearing it anyway). I've also read it around the Internets, so. I've also been given odd looks when I disagree. Or seem to imply that "The Dark Knight Rises" was bad.

So.

Did I mention that I really don't get the Mormon commercial campaign? I understand that there's a lot of bad stereotypes directed at them (join the club; "Jew" became an insult at my school for no other reason than that it was the first thing people could think of, and I spent four years asking people why "being like a Jew" was an insult, BEFORE I told them that I was one; also, see just about every religion and sexuality that isn't hetero, and every ethnicity). I understand that they've had to flee from people. I understand that most people don't know a lot about them. I've known, for certain, one Mormon in my life, and we only sat at the same lunch table - I spoke to her once outside of the cafeteria and I didn't like her all that much. She was a nice conversationalist some of the time, anyway. We had a number of discussions at my school (typically at lunch, when there was nothing else to talk about) about the differences between our different religions. We were... at least mildly diverse. We had a couple Catholics, at least one Mormon, a couple Jews, some atheists, some Presbyterians, some Protestants, some Muslims, some Anglicans, some "I don't really care what your religion is, I just want to talk about homework and TV and how much the preps really annoy us". So.

So I see these as a couple things. 1) It's supposed to teach people about what Mormons are like. They're not like the Quakers or the Hutterites or those "weird" enclosed sects you see on TV all the time. They could be some person you pass on the street. All right. DOWN WITH STEREOTYPES! THEY'RE CRUEL AND COMPLETELY UNTRUE!

2) It's supposed to convince people that being a Mormon is a great idea. I've seen only two of these commercials. One featured a business owner and another featured a scientist. It's nice to know that there are great people in our society, who might also be Mormon. But just because a great person is of a specific religious denomination does not mean that I would convert to that religious denomination. Most of my favorite actors are Christians or Atheists, as are most of my favorite singers, writers, and artists. That doesn't mean I'm converting. It's like people converting to scientology cause it's "the cool thing" in Hollywood.

If it's a conversion thing, even a passive conversion thing, then they must be assuming that they'll simple attract people to look up the religion and its tenets and such. So maybe they would be convinced to convert. Because, like so many commercials, this commercial thing has a large distance between "object being advertised" and "advertisement". Like those insurance commercials where you see them having a taste test. And it's supposed to have something to do with insurance. And there's not even an explanation about the insurance company or what it does. There's just a taste test.

Watch every insurance commercial you see closely. You would be... surprised. Also food commercials. "With a name like Smucker's, it's gotta be good." What? What about the Smucker's name makes it good? When I think about the word, I imagine someone doing fish lips and making the "smooch" sound, which, altogether (and separately) is really disgusting. Or it looks like a bastardized version of "Schmuck", which is not a nice term for someone. Then there's "mucking around", which is not a nice thing to say about someone's habits. Here's another test: go look at some well-known product names, and just think about them for a moment. H&R Block, McDonald's (which has an interesting history if you check it out), Burger King, Einstein Bagel's, and individual food items. Not like "banana" and "tomato", but like products. Candies and cereals and insta-meals and so on. Mascots, too. Especially when they involve animals. I just LOVE shows where all the animals talk. Especially when the group involves carnivores. Not omnivores. Carnivores. Yes, let's teach kids that all animals are friendly! Then when they grow up and realize that they're eating chickens and pigs and cows and sheep and such they can be filled with horror and go vegetarian or else keep on with what they've been doing and know that they're hypocritical, at least a smidgeon. Also, pray they never see a carnivore in action! Or learn how most of their foods were made (not just the generic meats; I mean like... the history of Jello, or just about any food involving chemicals and such).

So anyway, I wanted to write about DKR vs. The Avengers IMO.

Oh my. Kristi Yamaguchi???? When was the last time I heard about her? And they used her in a MITT ROMNEY AD? Seriously?

Ugh. So. Much. Anger. Especially since they just... why? Why do people DO that? Stick an Olympian talking about how awesome it is to be an Olympian in an ad highlighting how Mitt Romney "saved" the Olympics way back when. Yes, Mitt Romney. I bet you even built the podiums and cleaned up the garbage AND trained all of the athletes. Sure.

So I just stuck ye olde Doctor Who in so I can watch something and not get TOO distracted while I ramble.

Besides, I don't like watching it that much anyway. Dude. Barbara just knocked Ian over. And managed to break one glass thing. Out of four. Well... knocking Ian aside might have been one too many amazing things to ask from 60s television. Wow, I'm glad things changed. Ye old Doctor annoys me. I'm going to assume that his aged form made him at least partially senile. Ooh, bad scene change. It's like 90% screaming in the old series. Have I mentioned that At-Risk children annoy me?

Did I mention that teleportation also annoys me when it's not carefully thought out, insofar as it is possible? Not so much that it's POSSIBLE to move someone from point A to point B without bumping into the space between and reforming right at the end... but having it... work out sensibly. What's stopping them from landing inside a tree or a wall, especially when they're not familiar with the terrain?

What I've also learned from this show is that when a character does anything but stand, it's a very bad idea.

So I wrote a longish rant about DKR a few days ago. I'm not going to completely rewrite it so I guess I'll put in the Cliff Notes version for a decent comparison.

For starters, I did not "hate" DKR. As a favorite writer of mine wrote, "hate is not the opposite of love". The opposite of love is, well, not love. Just like the opposite of hate is "not hate". To be simple, anyway. I suppose a "lack of hate" also works.

I just don't love it, is all.

So, Cliff Notes. I'm just listing stuff when it comes to mind, not in order of importance.

1) The soundtrack was unremarkable. From what I heard, it was a recycling from the first two movies. Which is fine. I really like the soundtrack for those (Hanz Zimmer :D). But it wasn't remarkable enough for me to want to get my own copy. Have I mentioned that part of the reason I saw POTC 3 in theaters like six times was the soundtrack? (Only part of the reason, I assure you). I love soundtracks and, well... good music in general. So yeah. DKR. Not so much.

2) The acting was, IMO, unremarkable. I know everyone's saying Anne Hathaway just shone in this movie and that Tom hardy was great and, well... Yeah, okay. To each its time.

For starters, this movie featured Michael Kane, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman. All three were playing characters I liked, and they were good at being those characters. But all three characters had small parts and relatively little screen time. Heck, Alfred disappears maybe halfway through the film. Gary Oldman did a good job as an older Gordan. But none of them were truly remarkable in any way. They were great in the previous movies, too. But they added to the tapestry in 2, and just seemed to die out in this one. In one they were amazing.

Christian Bale was... okay. He did fine for what he had to do. The script was odd and the plot was... He did fine for what he had.

Tom Hardy was... well, I'm glad he's not just playing a pretty boy. He's very nice looking and he could easily get typecast into that role, like Heath Ledger. I am all for experimentation. I love it! I hate it when actors and actresses get stuck in one role (-cough, Hugh Jackman-). I also like Anne Hathaway's decision in this. A new kind of role for her! That's great! So Hardy was... fine. I kept getting side-tracked by the fact that I couldn't understand every 2 out of five words he said and that I was trying to understand how his mask matched up with the Bane power set, since he wasn't really doing the whole steroids, powerjuice set-up that most Bane storylines involve. Also, the script. The really, really lame script. And the fact that I really got annoyed with the ridiculous anarchy plot. Hathaway was an interesting add for the Catwoman legend. Best live-action Catwoman? Sure. Given that her only competition that I know of is Halle Barry, since I haven't seen the original movies or the TV show and we're not counting animated Catwomans. She wins. Lack of competition always helps.

I think that she was great, and would have been much better if it weren't for the script and plot. She did great with what she had, and her acting helped save the movie. In fact, it helped, a little, for me to ignore the stiletto heels she was wearing. Yes, they make nice weapons to threaten people with. Shoes that spit out daggers can be very useful in a desperate situation. Stiletto heels for a cat burglar, or any superhero or someone who runs? No. Not so much. More dangerous to the one wearing them. Running in heels is an art on a normal day and you can't maintain and your feet won't forgive you for at least a couple days. Ever notice how a lot of male supers don't have heeled shoes? Yes, I know not high-heels. But boots with heels, too.

Did either of them win the movie over for me? No. Not together and not separately.

[Doctor Who] You have the damn bracelets stupid people. Teleport out! Or did you forget to take them or something? Ugh... bad TV... Snerk... they're lifting giant "ice rods". Yeah. Sure. Cause ice that big would be that light. Uh, no. (Yes, I know it's not ice and most likely Styrofoam).

[Back to DKR] Joseph Gordon-Levitt was okay. I think his star is really rising :D Inception was a great big step up from "Angels in The Outfield", and now he's doing this. Also a sort of acting experimentation. Very nice. Still... there were problems. Also, he's adorable.

I think the extras in the prison did a great job. The guy from Grimm who had no speaking parts did great, too. The mayor was good for his two minutes of screentime.

The dude who took Gordon's old job? Eh. He was just annoying and a little too over-excited.

So acting job. Not so much.

[Doctor Who] YOU HAVE THE KEY, TELEPORT OUT! OMG!

[Back to DKR] One of the principal things you should like in a movie is the acting. Sure, you should like the overall movie, but it's a movie. With people acting in it, typically. If the acting weren't important, you wouldn't have actors in it. Probably. Maybe. I THINK THAT LIKING THE ACTING IS SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT IN ANYTHING INVOLVING ACTING.

[Doctor Who] Oh really. They DIDN'T take the things. Wow. That was stupid. Oh no, they needed more plot threatening. Woot.

It's like this entire episode is one movie cliche after another. WTF.

[Back to DKR] 3) Plot. Anarchy... for the sake of anarchy... um... Kay? The story fit with the source material used so I liked that. I just... yeah, it fit the comics, but the sex scene just came off kind of randomly to me. I don't know if it's a thing or not, but I still kind of think that this "random in the moment sex", especially between characters who don't know each other well is kind of a Hollywood fiction. If they were married or had been dating for a while, okay. Fine. I get that. But this? I knew what was going to happen as soon as Tate... showed up... for no reason that I could fathom... And between wondering why Bruce had NO concern for this, being, well, Batman, who's only slightly better than the Question on conspiracy theories (admittedly, he was probably a little distracted at the time), I sighed. Aloud. "Great. A random sex scene. Lovely." I don't know about you, but I've always considered watching sex scenes on the big screen to be awkward. I'm kind of grateful that we only saw before and after. Although after was also kinda awkward, too. Beyond that, I mean... anarchy. It always comes back to that. I understand using anarchy for plot. Some of the time. I don't know if it was properly used here. I don't really think so.

4) Action sequences. Well... there weren't many. Bane was pretty badass, I suppose. Although Batman was kind of lame. I remember liking two, maybe. Both were Catwoman action sequences and were pretty short. One was good because of the way it made use of a ridiculous article of clothing. A staple of DC superhero stories is random fighting sequences. There weren't enough for my taste. And those that were there weren't as fun as normal Batman sequences, especially in comparison with the other two movies. I actually didn't even consider this element because there was nothing that really caught my eye beyond those two sequences where Catwoman uses the shoes and where she helps the kid thief.

[Doctor Who]Ah. More people thinking that a criminal court case involves a "let's solve the crime", which will prove innocence. Yeah no. Just no. Oh really. Really 60s sexism? A woman opens the door and automatically expects that someone is there to see her husband, and not maybe herself or whoever's on hand? Jeez. Beating of a woman. Ooh. This show, this show this show. Psychometic examination? Not DNA testing? MY FRIENDS, I GIVE YOU OLD TELEVISION! I take it that people know so little about what this show considers "law jargon" that they don't use dramatic music when certain people say things because people aren't expect to be smart enough to understand it.

[Back to DKR] 5) A very poor show of diversity. Two of the principal cast members are female. Seven are male. Two were Asian. Perhaps 85% of the extras were male. Perhaps 65% of those were white. It's one of those damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't scenarios, so I understand at least some of the decisions. The only principal cast members (other than Catwoman) that they could replace were characters the audience wasn't meant to like. You make them female or nonwhite and people say "so only non-white and/or women are evil; great", instead of "so only white men can do anything of importance". I understand it. Doesn't mean I like it. Did this make me hate the movie? No. Didn't make me like it. Did I also mention that it's a "boy's orphanage", not just a generic orphanage? Sure, it's sticking to the comics. Maybe. I don't really know. But seriously?

6) There's a moment where Batman goes out to gather clues. And he ends up randomly at the top of a bridge. I know that comics are full of moments where heroes end up at random points somewhere for no reason, especially Batman, who just finds weird places to stand. A lot. So he ends up at the top of a bridge.

I was left thinking of a moment from Code Ment where Lelouch says "HOW THE HECK DID I END UP HERE???"

7) When Robin takes the the bus full of kids to the bridge and the cop blows it up and they tell the kids to get back on the bus... well. They flash back to this scene at least three times between other takes. I'm not entirely certain they even change the children in the picture. I know that it's annoying to get little kids to do anything, but seriously? I kept thinking "and meanwhile, Robin is shouting "OMG KIDS, JUST GET ON THE DAMN BUS ALREADY!"

8) Humor is a big winning point for me. There was a little of it, but not even close to enough to make a difference.

The things I liked about it.

1) When Batman says "so that's what it feels like" when Catwoman vanishes on him. That was funny. It made up for his really. Really. Really. Slow head-turn to look at the noise or light or whatever he looks at. And then turns back really. Really. Really slowly.

2) This actually ties into something I'm sort of angry about. I think that it would have been really awesome to see Gary Oldman take out those assassin. I know it wasn't necessary and still made him look badass the way they did it. And it was a fun moment. But I would have liked to see it anyway.

3) Despite the fact that I predicted just about everything and the fact that I really should have figured it out, they still surprised me with Talia's identity. That was nice.

It really isn't a matter of the bad things outweighing the good. It's a matter of there not being enough incredible things and no "good feeling"... and then the problems just shone out. I don't know. I thought it was a good movie, really. I just wouldn't watch it again.

Now for the Avengers. I've seen the movie twice in theaters and enjoyed it both times.

I guess I should do this in the same order.

Cons:

1) I don't remember the soundtrack. I'd have to give it a listen to see if it was good.

2) Despite their best efforts, there was a LITTLE bit of cheese. But hey, it really wasn't much. They had Loki and the whole bowing thing, which was kind of lame. His opening speech was certainly... energetic. But kind of odd. The mind control thing was also kind of odd.

3) There were a few big "convenient" plot points. Putting in a self-destruct bit into the device? Banner just showing up where they were in New York? From wherever the heck he was? Also, while I think that Banner saying "I'm always angry" was very dramatic and badass", I was a little confused and it was WAY too convenient. I'm not familiar with the Hulk in the comics, so I don't know if he ever gains control, at least briefly, in some way. Obviously he didn't have COMPLETE control (and we don't see him change back until I guess the extra scene THAT I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN). But this was just... odd. He does occasionally help people in Hulk form in the comics. He did it twice in the Ultimate Spider-Man comics. She-Hulk seems to have full control. I think. Again, I'm not familiar with the comics.

Contrary to what people say, Heimdall could have probably spotted Loki while he was busy throwing all his power around (throwing power around messes a lot with stealth spells, unless the power IS a stealth spell; it's also harder to be stealthy when people are looking for you) on Earth. And honestly, who's to say Odin didn't have such power? The Bifrost had to be created at some time, and had to run on something. Who's to say this "dark matter" or whatever didn't power or it predated it, and the Bifrost was just a new invention that made travel easier? So I think that the only problem with Thor's appearance was the SLIGHT convenience. But if he was trying his best before to remain hidden, well... then I get him only showing up when Loki got to Earth.

Oh, yes. They only care about the woman. First, "it's a woman!" They didn't have to say "it's a man!" for the first dude. And they didn't make any comments about his age or anything. GOD THIS SHOW!

4) Sacrificial lamb/lion. I can't think about which he was supposed to be. THEY KILLED PEDRO!

5) The diversity distribution... was still eh. I didn't notice AS much as I did in DKR because I wasn't BORED watched Avengers, while I had a number of moments watching DKR where I thought "what should I look at now? Well, that bottom corner looks mildly interesting. Let's see what happens there." When you're bored by the main action, you're more likely to notice EVERYTHING ELSE. Yes, I did notice the diversity distribution. Two of the primary cast members are female. Eight are male. Of that, one is Russian, one is black, two are aliens... and the rest are all white guys (and the one girl). Most of the SHIELD personnel looked male. The city-goers seemed more diversified, and I don't remember the police very well (although I'm pretty sure those were mostly male, too). The Chitari (or however you spell it)... didn't have obvious either/or. Also, the scientists Loki had looked mostly (or entirely) male. It did bother me, but the movie was still good, so...

I would have liked other female heroes to be used. Spiderwoman has been on the Avengers, as has She-Hulk, Miss Marvel (or whatever her name is... Carol Danvers?)... But as far as I'm aware, Black Widow's is one of the only original female Avengers. So whatever. Most of the other female heroes in the Marvelverse seem to be spread between the X-Men and the Brotherhood of Evil (can't they just change it sometime, I mean seriously?).

Pros.

1) The acting was fun.

RDJ was, well... he was fun as Tony Stark. Sure, he gets a funny script, but he was hilarious in pulling it all off. Even an amazing script can be wrecked by poor actors. And in this case, we had a great script and great actors.

Samuel L. Jackson was great. VERY great.

Chris Evans was great. Chris Hemsworth was great. Jeremy Renner was great. Mark Ruffalo was AMAZING and simple adorable. Tom Hiddleston was great. Scarlet Johannsen was great. Clark Gregg (Phil Coulson) was hilarious.

2) Lots of jokes and humor. "Ant! Boot!" "He's adopted." "This usually works." And so on. Lots of fun stuff.

3) The dynamic between the characters was just... it was amazing. I was very concerned that throwing that many big name actors into a soup, especially for a comic-book-based adaptation was doomed to failure, but, well... they did amazing. Adorable and funny and just... amazing.

4) The fights were great. Funny, nice to watch... simply enjoyable. And there were lots of them. The only one I really had issue with was the ThorxCaptain AmericaxIron Man end of the fight. It was kind of odd. I think it had something to do with where they were standing and how Iron Man and Captain America were just fine.

5) Script was awesome for the most part.

6) Chris Hemsworth. Chris Evans. Tom Hiddleston. On screen. A lot.

7) The story was just fun.

8) It matched up to the source material I'm familiar with. My first real run at an Avengers comic was the New Avengers, where there's a prison break-out and it attracts a bunch of disparate heroes to the scene, where they have a fight, and it's awesome. Afterward, Captain America gathers those heroes together so that it's just like the good ol' days. They have to learn to deal with each other and work together, and that's not easy. There's plenty of humor along the way. Admittedly, the make-up of the New Avengers was Captain America, Wolverine, Spider-man, Spiderwoman, that dude whose name escapes me... and I think someone else. Maybe Miss Marvel? I don't remember. For the most part, the Avengers seem to always be made up of Captain America, a Hulk-related character, and others. There's no storyline I know of that Whedon was blatantly copying. What's a theme in all comics, Marvel AND DC, when you have any team up? Typically, at least one villain (and it can be from one hero's specific Rogue's Gallery, doesn't have to be shared, although heroes are more frequently sharing villains today, probably because the majority of villains out there are just ridiculous), and then they all band together to deal with the world-ending problem.

In conclusion. Avengers awesome. DKR... not so much.

Avengers had good actors with a great script and an okay plot, and they shone together. DKR had good actors with a clunky script and a weird plot. And they kind of struggled with each other.

Avengers was funnier by a large margin.

Watching the characters interact with each other was very enjoyable to watch in Avengers. In Dark Knight it was somewhat painful at times and, well... kind of boring.

There was more fighting and more INTERESTING fighting in Avengers.

So... yeah. I enjoyed Avengers more. I don't agree that DKR was better. I would defintely buy Avengers for myself and rewatch it more times. It's not the best thing since sliced bread, but honestly it was a great movie.

And so I'm done. Now it's time for sleep. No more ye olde Doctor Who! Woot!
starfire11: (Default)
More Brave and the Bold. I knew it was cheesy, but really? The old cheesy Robin who says things dumber than Velma's "Jinkies"?

Oh, they made up for it by making the Nightwing storyline (I think). Okay. Some of it is forgiven. Some of it. Not a lot of it.

I've come to some realizations over this past weekend.

The first was this: everything fictional is fanfiction. Fanfiction of life. And like normal fanfiction, some people just write it better than others.

The second was this: Babylon 5 and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine might be relatively the same show, in consideration of characters, basic plot, and plot devices, but BB5 touched me more, personally, in five seasons, than Star Trek did in 29 seasons, a cartoon series, and 11 movies.

So I have three questions after all of this.

1) Has my professed refusal to love something just because it's a member of a specific category (made by a band, director, composer, or a member of a certain genre, etc.), fallen in the wake of my DC obsession?
2) Why is everything fanfiction?
3) Why, at the end of the day, do I still think BB5 beats Star Trek, despite Star Trek's clear overall success over BB5?

So I just haven't written much in a while and I need to write something out.

I've already gone over this show, but I've watched more of it now so I have some more thoughts on it. There's a pretty common trait to recent DC and Marvel comics where they use old conventions with a re-made and re-introduced twist, for nostalgia and such. It's rather interesting, especially when they actually make some of these things work. I mostly like it because it's almost a beginner's introduction to the universe. I didn't grow up buying $0.25 comics from a newsstand or train station or whatever. i didn't know much about these stories, but now I do. So I still think two of the best things about this show are its nostalgia and informational value.

There really is no getting past the cheese, though. There's a mix of "we're making fun of how the comics were originally written and the ways things used to work" and "this is a show somewhat pushed towards younger kids." Arguably, this show could be for adults and teens (which is really true for any show I've heard of using DC and Marvel heroes), rather than little kids, but the cheese makes it feel like it was made for a much younger audience. Batman has grown darker over the years, and this is somewhat reminiscent of how he was way back when, from what I've read. He's still pretty dark, and he's still a detective, but there's a light-heartedness amount of corny and cheese to him (punchlines and all) reminiscent of old comics, overall. Just look at the old Superman or Fantastic Four comics. It's pretty sad. And honestly, to make these old-timey villains of any value whatsoever, the situations the heroes get involved in have to be rather ridiculous. They haven't had many silly "darn it all, you meddling kids" moments, but there have still been a couple.

Of course, there are also those wonderful "solutions" our heroes come up with to answer certain problems. Like the one Aquaman came up with, where they briefly teleported Earth's moon to orbit another planet.

I can't make this stuff up. I honestly wish I could, because it's stuff like this that sells.

There was also an episode where Batman levitated. And this was "explained" by the appearance of Atom Man, who was originally too small to see, so he was "invisible". I'd say that he could have flown and picked Batman up... but I didn't know that a) he could fly and b) he was THAT strong.

Ooooh, an alien nullifer beam. They really had an "alien nullifier beam". They REALLY...

You know, when Batman gave Ace (aka Batdog) a "bat biscuit" (that's not what it was called, but that's what I'm calling it because it was shaped like the Bat insignia; and that's probably what the creators called it, too)... I was ready. Even before Batman tossed it to him. I saw the look and I said "and he's gonna get a bat biscuit. Oh yeah. Saw that coming."

I'm not even going to start on Aquaman, who is meant as the cheesiest of the cheese anyway. Or on Batman and Green Arrow's cars.

There was also an episode where Huntress wants to investigate what Babyface broke his gang out of jail for. While this was a validish idea... there's a slight problem. My first thought was "well, maybe he broke his gang out because he COULD? Because he needed them to do OTHER schemes?" Does every villain need to have a shopping list of schemes when they want to break their partners-in-crime out? Maybe the plan was this: break out, move from there. I'd think that the priority should have been finding where they were hiding out. Oh, right, I'm thinking of a sensible villain who might want to lay low after they break out and before doing anything big.

Despite the cheese, the characters are interesting and the stories are, well... interesting. It isn't the best series in the world, and I would have rather seen more seasons of Justice League, where there are a bunch of characters interacting, rather than just Batman and x, followed by some simple moral. I wonder if they're just playing with the SupermanxBatman duo. Superman has yet to pair up with Batman in this series, and he's the one I remember being stuck with him the most, although I don't know how often than happened in the original comics.

Why is everything fictional fanfiction? I think that's self-explanatory.

Take it this way. Realistic fiction is the most realistic one can get where fiction is concerned, right? Take a look at "Mrs. Dalloway": it's a story about people thinking as they live their lives. Honestly. What did the author use to make this story? real-world events (world war 1 I believe), real-world objects, including cars, clothes, parties, and implied realistic figures, including political figures and types of "scientists". Despite the realism of the story (especially with the use of stream-of-consciousness writing), this is still fiction. These people and events aren't real. They're just imitating real people and events that could, within reason, happen to the averagish person. A "fan" of life did their research (whether going into the library or simply through personal experience) and wrote this fictional piece. The same could be side for anything, from historical fiction to fantasy and science fiction. The best science fiction typically takes its start off of science fact and moves off from there. Fantasy's worst flaw is when it uses the excuse of "it's magic", and bases much of its story on known animals and the capabilities of humans, as well as information from the Middle Ages and so on. The best speculative fiction is as close to realistic human behavior and life as possible, so it isn't like they make up people and events from nowhere.

I was mainly thinking about the Wicked series, and how all it is, really, is glorified published, popular fanfiction. This is not uncommon, as is demonstrated by the many novels based in the Star Wars and Star Trek universes. Other franchises have fanfiction novels and comic books based on them (and not made by the original creators). It's a thing. But then I thought, "Well, it's been said that the Wizard of Oz was actually a metaphor and satire of political undercurrents occurring during the book's creations (e.g., Dorothy's silver shoes - the push towards the use of silver to support the small amount of gold that then backed US currency). All the original book series was, was fanfiction of human behavior (the military, politicians, farmers, townsfolk, mobs, royalty, etc.) and human life and decisions. So Wicked is a fanfiction of a fanfiction. Fanfictionception!

It had to be typed. Sorry.

And so, at the last, why do I think that BB5 better than Star Trek?

I don't think this is an overall thing. I honestly think that this is a personal thing. I love many of the characters in Star Trek (I mean, honestly, when you have THAT many to choose from, a creator has to do SOMETHING right). I liked... um... you know, I liked the main plot of Voyager, and some of the subplots in DS9. The new Star Trek movie was also just fun.

But honestly? Star Trek had a tendency to focus on quantity over quality at times, much like a lot of old comics. The stories weren't always amazing or funny, or plain fun at all. BB5 also had cliche. There was some cheesy liners. Some stories you could easily figure out the ending to. But there were these characters... these beautiful characters, with amazing acting and (ignoring a great deal of season 1) some amazing plot and simply gorgeous script. Out of everything I've watched in Star Trek, there are a number of specifically Star Trek lines I can remember (Beam me up, Energize, Make it so, Resistance is futile), but there are few lines I recall that truly touched me.

"I used to think that it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." - Marcus Cole

"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, or genetics and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu and Einstein and Mozart and Buddy Holly and Aristophanes...and all of this...ALL of this was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars." - Jeffrey Sinclair

"I believe that when we leave a place, part of it goes with us and part of us remains. Go anywhere in the station when it is quiet, and just listen. After a while, you will hear the echoes of all our conversations, every thought and word we've exchanged. Long after we are gone, our voices will linger in these walls for as long as this place remains. But I will admit that the part of me that is going will very much miss the part of you that is staying." - G'Kar

"And I am both terrified and reassured to know that there are still wonders in the universe, that we have not yet explained everything." - G'Kar

And not everything is deep and sad or harsh. Some things are deep and funny. Some aren't.

This can be said for a large part of Star Trek. If it couldn't, I doubt the franchise would be as popular as it is. But I don't know. I still feel like it's a quality over quantity issue. BB5 had a great deal of quality in its short time. Star Trek had, well... a lot of quantity. It wasn't just DS9 that was imitating something else. Every show used a somewhat basic formula. They all had their Mr. Spock: Data, Tuvok, Bashir (Siddig el Fatil actually knew he was being turned into a Data and REALLY hated it; the problem is, if you look back at the beginning of Next Generation, it's blatantly clear that Data is just another Spock), T'Pol... Did I mention that three of these characters (Spock, Tuvok, and T'Pol) are vulcans? Two were second-in-command on the Enterprise, while the third was the closest friend of the Captain, as well as a sort of bodyguard for her. Also, Data was a computer made to appear human. Bashir was a human made to be like a computer. Vulcans are a race who exist to be as "logical" as possible, similar to machines. ARE WE SEEING A FORMULA YET?

Spock wasn't the only formulaic bit in the story. Every single captain got the babe... or dude. Archer, Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway... none of these characters were monogamous. Janeway and Sisko were the best at trying, but they weren't amazing.

There was always a rookie. I think it was Chekov in the original series, Wesley Crusher, Harry Kim, Bashir (smart, yes, still a rookie)/Jake Sisko, Hoshi/Travis.

Then there was the rogue. There was the techie. The angry security chief. Seriously. Why are security chiefs always angry?

There was also this repetition of plots. The set would change. A little. The actors would change. But the same basic scenarios would run. It was kind of annoying. I suppose BB5 won out on that score because, although a few of the plots were familiar, it didn't run five series and 11 movies. It just had one. If Crusade had its change, I might be saying that BB5 suffered from the same problem.

By the way, forget everything I said. Neil Patrick Harris is a musical villain in Batman: The Brave and the Bold, and the episode he's in is a musical parody of, well, the basic musical formula. And while his character and Black Canary are singing, Batman is swimming through this flood of fighters. And there was this dance with Gorilla Grod, Green Arrow, Black Canary, Aquaman, Black Manta, and I think Time King (I'm not familiar with him). It's... hilarious and awesome and just... so funny. Also, his many outfits and hairstyles are just... hilarious. And so Neil Patrick Harris. This is quite possibly the best episode of a show based on comics I've seen. That's probably the humor speaking, but... seriously. There's even synchronized swimming. And now Batman is singing... that was amazing.

Anyway. I don't really know what I ended up typing here. I would love to see this Green Arrow and Black Canary get together. Just for the cuteness. Also, LashinaxJonah Hex? Never thought of that, but adorable.

Ta.
starfire11: (Default)
I did a lot of homework today and kind of just relaxed. I watched some “Batman Beyond”. Mom and Mike joined me. It was annoying, but okay. We watched “Plague” again.

Profile

starfire11: (Default)
starfire11

January 2013

S M T W T F S
  12345
678 9 101112
131415 16171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2017 12:46 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios