The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > J.J Abrams is Star Wars-ing it now as well............
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 01-30-2013, 01:19 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,613
Default

You know I never ever thought about the differences between the old G and the new BSG. Lack of lasers never bother me. I enjoyed the story… the dimension and humanism of the characters…
Simply put, it was a rousing good yarn.
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 01-30-2013, 02:52 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaman View Post
You know I never ever thought about the differences between the old G and the new BSG. Lack of lasers never bother me. I enjoyed the story… the dimension and humanism of the characters…
Simply put, it was a rousing good yarn.
Exactly, and that's precisely what I took it for.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 01-30-2013, 02:53 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
My feeling there would be those sorts of criticisms often come from people who had decided to either strongly object to or outright hate the 'new' version of the show anyway and then were basically coming up with ever more pointless criticisms.

Not unlike those '100 reasons Abramstrek sucks' type lists that float around. When you set out to dislike a thing from the start..............people will eventually cling to anything in proclamation of it's percieved flaws.

Usually some have merit, some make you shrug your shoulders and go 'whatever'!

But I think getting bogged down in things like lasers is just missing any point the material has. The great enormous beauty of sci fi and all it's levels from hard sci fi to sci fi tinged with fantasy is that you can do it any way you want. You can go way the heck out there into the future with lasers and so what, or you can set it in very contemporary settings and it still is sci fi. Or a world that's just a little different than ours. From 'Star Wars' to 'Never Let Me Go' (a film that does not reveal itself as sci-fi for some time but ultimately is very much so when all is revealed).

A lot of that is whatever window dressing you want to use to dress up whatever story or theme you're telling.
Bingo!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 01-30-2013, 03:08 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

[quote=horatio;328812

Interesting, I didn't know that frak was already used in the original series. IMO it was a brilliant way to evade censorship and about kids, well, IMO BSG is too violent and desperate for kids anyway so I don't think it is a problem that there is verbal obscenity on the show. I also think that it is one of these many details that make it feel realistic.[/quote]

Yeah, Frak was used maybe once or twice in the original series...which often leads me to believe that perhaps it was a far stronger word than the fans took it for in the original series. I know for sure it was used once in the pilot episode/movie "Saga of a Star World", when Starbuck's laser pistol misfires in one of the climactic gun battles.

The violence level: Yeah, some of those hard core old schoolers were dismayed at the level of violence in BSG. They wanted the Star Wars level of violence like the original series had, so they wouldn't have to cover their kids' eyes. The violence level in BSG is much more akin to Black Hawk Down, and that ticked off those old schoolers.

But to me, it was a perfect fit. We are talking about a very dire circumstance for humanity and its near extinction....and war is not something that should be sugar coated.

In this case, it makes me wonder what Star Wars would've been like if they'd went for a much more realistic take on war? We are talking about an Empire that will stop at nothing to rule the galaxy.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 01-30-2013, 04:25 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Wars shows e.g. the cost of resisting the Empire in the very first movie but the blowing up of a planet is fairly abstract. I think that this is simply an implication of the genre, it is hard to tell a romantic story and at the same time delve into brutely honest and graphical depictions of violence.
Clone Wars partly amends at least the abstraction via giving e.g. the clones a human face but it doesn't become graphical.

In general I am ambiguous about the "showing war as it really is" thing. Of course I abhor the sanitized portrayal of war which permeates our media but you can never create on the screen what people really experience in war: heightened awareness, pure existential fear and above all the nightmares that will haunt you afterwards.
Furthermore there is Truffaut's point, that an anti-war movie can feel quite exciting. Take the scene Apocalypse Now when the "cavalry" flies in, despite of all the horrors, despite the movie's crystal clear stance on war the scene is simply invigorating.
It's like when a director considers doing a rape scene. It might be a good idea to not merely imply anything but show the true horror but like in the case of showing killing it can be exciting to watch for the audience. That's why I think that literature is better at showing horrors, unlike cinema it doesn't risk arousing our primitive destructive instincts.

I don't think it is problematic when e.g. Wars or Trek doesn't go all gritty when somebody dies. Picard being haunted by his experience with the Borg or the icy bureaucratic demeanour of a willing servant like Tarkin do perhaps hint at the horrors sufficiently well. Art doesn't have to be realistic to deal with something very real.
Take Robert deNiro in Taxi Driver and Awakenings. Isn't the former one more convincing at showing a person with psychological issues via mere art, acting, than the one which is realistic in the sense of describing a neurological condition medically correctly?
In the case of violence there can also be too much. Unlike words pictures are immediate so the viewer might disconnect or repress it whereas 'hinting at much more' can be more horrifying as you gotta imagine it (which is why children shouldn't watch violence on the screen yet can deal very well with listening to or reading of classical brutal fairy tales like Hänsel and Gretel or Red Riding Hood). A personal example is being confronted with pictures of starving or disfigured children in ads for charity. I don't wanna see this sh*t. But if you give me an article that gives perhaps just numbers about how many people starve I sympathize much more.

This may sound one-sided but I don't wanna argue against realistic violence on the screen. In BSG it was definitely necessary, important and frakking good.
I merely wanted to hint at, writing as usual too much, why I think the issue is perhaps more complex, why realism is not the only option and why the distortions of other non-realistic forms of art are not necessarily bad.

Last edited by horatio : 01-30-2013 at 04:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 01-30-2013, 05:37 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Wars shows e.g. the cost of resisting the Empire in the very first movie but the blowing up of a planet is fairly abstract. I think that this is simply an implication of the genre, it is hard to tell a romantic story and at the same time delve into brutely honest and graphical depictions of violence.
Clone Wars partly amends at least the abstraction via giving e.g. the clones a human face but it doesn't become graphical.

In general I am ambiguous about the "showing war as it really is" thing. Of course I abhor the sanitized portrayal of war which permeates our media but you can never create on the screen what people really experience in war: heightened awareness, pure existential fear and above all the nightmares that will haunt you afterwards.
Furthermore there is Truffaut's point, that an anti-war movie can feel quite exciting. Take the scene Apocalypse Now when the "cavalry" flies in, despite of all the horrors, despite the movie's crystal clear stance on war the scene is simply invigorating.
It's like when a director considers doing a rape scene. It might be a good idea to not merely imply anything but show the true horror but like in the case of showing killing it can be exciting to watch for the audience. That's why I think that literature is better at showing horrors, unlike cinema it doesn't risk arousing our primitive destructive instincts.

I don't think it is problematic when e.g. Wars or Trek doesn't go all gritty when somebody dies. Picard being haunted by his experience with the Borg or the icy bureaucratic demeanour of a willing servant like Tarkin do perhaps hint at the horrors sufficiently well. Art doesn't have to be realistic to deal with something very real.
Take Robert deNiro in Taxi Driver and Awakenings. Isn't the former one more convincing at showing a person with psychological issues via mere art, acting, than the one which is realistic in the sense of describing a neurological condition medically correctly?
In the case of violence there can also be too much. Unlike words pictures are immediate so the viewer might disconnect or repress it whereas 'hinting at much more' can be more horrifying as you gotta imagine it (which is why children shouldn't watch violence on the screen yet can deal very well with listening to or reading of classical brutal fairy tales like Hänsel and Gretel or Red Riding Hood). A personal example is being confronted with pictures of starving or disfigured children in ads for charity. I don't wanna see this sh*t. But if you give me an article that gives perhaps just numbers about how many people starve I sympathize much more.

This may sound one-sided but I don't wanna argue against realistic violence on the screen. In BSG it was definitely necessary, important and frakking good.
I merely wanted to hint at, writing as usual too much, why I think the issue is perhaps more complex, why realism is not the only option and why the distortions of other non-realistic forms of art are not necessarily bad.
I can agree on those points.
Even though Star Wars and BSG are essentially about war, there is a sort of romanticism about the other aspects of life that are affected by the wars, and those are the things that folks obviously want to cling on to.... the freedom to love, laugh, seek companionship, say what one will without fear of militant reprisal, etc. To live in an age of hope. Then, that hope becomes about the only beacon of light when the Cylons or the Empire strike, and all else seems just about lost.

A lot of classic fans that hated the new Galactica despised that aspect of the new series.....they felt like there was just no sense of hope or family in this characterization of the show. My thought was that those fans just weren't looking closely enough. They wanted hope and family to be tenets that stood out in the classic show as obviously as bollocks on a bulldog. And when such hope and family were not quite as abstract and apparent in the new series, they balked.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 02-01-2013, 05:30 AM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I think there were strong personal commitments in the show, e.g. between Tigh and Adama or in the resistance movement against the Cylon occupation.
Indeed. And that was just a tiny fraction of such things in the show. (Although, some fans would balk at the rather "terrorist" ways in which the Colonial Warriors resisted the Cylons on New Caprica...suicide bombings and such).

But the new series had just as much hope and family as the original series did....it's just that the original series did it all in one short season.

In the miniseries, one of the scenes that moved me was the reunion of Boomer and Tyrol, and Apollo and Adama, and Starbuck seeing Apollo alive. The music that accompanied that sequence was perfect!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 02-01-2013, 12:18 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

The first time we witness terror historically was in the French revolution and as you guys come from the British tradition and I am from conservative Germany we are all basically anti-Jacobins. But in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court" Mark Twain pointed out that what we usually call terror is often a response to some quieter, less eruptive, systemic long term-terror:

There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

Of course in general non-violent resistance to an occupying, terrorizing or unjust force (Jesus of Nazareth, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, the `89 revolutions and so on) is preferable to violence. But sometimes it is not possible to do it Thoreau style, sometimes you have to become violent. Like in the case of war it should always be the last option but when you deal with e.g. nazis (French resistance) or Cylons (New Caprica resistance) you cannot do sit-downs on the concrete as the cop who will come along will do more than merely pepper spray you or put you in a cell for one night.
So yeah, I think it is important to not let the term terror be determined by the some Sunnite suicide bombers. These fu*knuts don't deserve to get immortalized via monopolizing a word. Never yield any ground to the enemy.

Back to your main point, I am also a big fan of of conventional family values. But it is not the only form of social bond that can exist between people. Friendship, comradeship, loyalty & leadership, we saw them all in BSG. It was rarely melodramatic or moving on a soap-opera level style ... but real life is neither.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:11 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.