what the fuck is cyberpunk

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

Spoiler

yeah, you kind of are a B5 apologist, Morkonan, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Nothing you've said was untenable. I suppose I should have contextualised: from a current perspective of where sci-fi TV is, Babylon 5 is hard to sell in light of The Expanse's existence. But that's why I called B5 a prototype, a little train that could: without it, there'd be no BSG remake, no Expanse, possibly no golden age of television.

Let's go backwards.

Firstly, I know at least one other Exile who is an Enterprise fan (I'm pushing Bab5 onto him actually -- its sins are not deadly ones by his metric, and I suspect by yours). You lot are weird. I made it half an episode, and that's despite considering Quantum Leap one of the finest shows ever made. Or maybe BECAUSE of it? Either way, that show. Voyager was bad enough. But if you liked Enterprise, consider me envious of your ability to do so. I felt there was a great ride lurking under all that overstayed-welcome crud. I liked the doctor. I almost always like the doctor though. Except Crusher's replacement. What the fuck. Seriously.

Comparing Forbes to Christian is downright unfair. She'd already had a role that would eat Ivanova for breakfast (Ro Laren), and her presence on BSG was a fucking gift. Then again, BSG benefited from two other venerable big screen/tv actors: EJO and MM. It was a blessed production from go to woe, possibly getting too much of the leeway at the end that Babylon 5 more rightfully deserved. So no sir, I refuse to compare Ivanova with Admiral Cain, anymore than I'd compare Garibaldi with Saul Tigh, despite superficial similarities. I think a more interesting comparison would be G'Kar and Baltar...

The mismatching/issues issue is interesting, because it can equally produce those unforeseen genius moments as it can the much more likely awkwardness. I'm an unrepentant fan of Marcus Cole, even though if you'd asked me if the show needed a snarky Space-brit with beautiful hair and an incel-level crush on the local bisexual firecracker...yeah, probably not.

The Golden Age of Television is, as the wiki entry notes, a flexible and debatable term. The first was apparently in the 50s, so that's immediately a problem. And right now, we are past that golden age -- on that I completely agree. Look at the iconic titles of the golden age and it's clear a show of their calibre hasn't been made in years: Deadwood, The Wire, Oz, Sopranos, etc. As you noted, right now everyone's throwing a few seasons to see what sticks. Everyone wants to be the next GoT, not realising that GoT wasn't trying to be the next anything. Not how it works. But let 'em try. We still have golden-age quality TV in most genres and on most platforms. I will agree that the stretchiness of shows made for streaming can be irritating. It's not exactly filler, but it's definitely a case where one longs for the tightness of a good 6-10 part british work, essentially a mini series. Love me a good mini series, given I was raised on them, from 'V' through to 'Pillars of the Earth'. The 'limited series' we see now is a close analogue I think. Good Omens, for example.

As for The Expanse, it makes it that bit harder to hate Bezos for saving it from the endless incompetence of SyFy.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

Firstly, I know at least one other Exile who is an Enterprise fan (I'm pushing Bab5 onto him actually -- its sins are not deadly ones by his metric, and I suspect by yours). You lot are weird. I made it half an episode, and that's despite considering Quantum Leap one of the finest shows ever made. Or maybe BECAUSE of it?

I, too, think that Quantum Leap was an outstanding show. It went somewhere that television shows didn't often like to go. "Morality Plays" were not TV's strong suit when it aired. (I'll also point out Start Trek:ToS in that light as well...) Bakula and Stockwell were superb and QL had a "magic" premise that allowed for it to really be "about anything, anywhere, anytime." An old science-fiction show I remember watching as a kid that had that kind of dynamic was "Time Tunnel."

"

Either way, that show. Voyager was bad enough. But if you liked Enterprise, consider me envious of your ability to do so. I felt there was a great ride lurking under all that overstayed-welcome crud. I liked the doctor. I almost always like the doctor though. Except Crusher's replacement. What the fuck. Seriously.

I wanted a grittier Start Trek and got it. That's really what drove my enthusiasm. Though I first hated the opening credit soundtrack, it later grew on me... Billingsley, who played "Phlox" stole every scene he was in, much like Picardo in Voyager (The Doctor) literally overpowered anyone in the same room with him. These "strong" supporting characters are very important in all 'Trek series - Not only do they anchor the other characters around them, they present a relatable character for the audience. Much more than a simple foil, they often serve as a point of moral reference.

Voyager... was a cluster___ of crap ideas. I did like a good many episodes, but I was too often forced to suspend my disbelief in the extreme. How the F can a crew striving to reach one single point in the galaxy keep running into the same f'ing people? <I just shivered with anger and my bowels nearly protested for the memory of this f'ing mess..> I even liked Seven of Nine's character, but resented the overt appeal to adolescent musk... Not that I didn't also stir a bit myself, but there's only so much pandering I can take. :)

On Dr. Pulaski (Had to refresh my memory), it appears it was a production decision that backfired. In just my opinion, given from a vacuum of info, I'd say they may have been hunting for a stronger, more stable, supporting character as I outlined above. And, from a memory tainted by something of a dislike for TNG, I'd have to say that Crusher's reappearance also came with a bit of a stronger character. The failing there - She was "assertive" in her support. TNG's over-reliance on the "so, what do you think" round-table approach of revealing a character's inner life sucked. Bad. Terrible, lazy, stoopid friggin' crappy writing... And, they dumped Crusher's character into that mix on the reappearance, always chiming in with the "the audience is too stupid to think about this, so this character will say it" garbage...

Sorry for the rant. But, one can bear only so much.

"

Comparing Forbes to Christian is downright unfair.

That is true. However, I wasn't trying to compare them directly. I was just trying to give an impression of some characteristics of that character that I think would have served to make Ivanova a better character. They weren't in the same roles, of course. It was that ironic "desperate stoicism" along with a certain basic toughness I was after, there. Ivanova often had moments where she was supposed to appear tough, strong, capable... and it just fell flat. That's not necessarily Christian's fault, either. She's just not very intimidating.

"

...despite superficial similarities. I think a more interesting comparison would be G'Kar and Baltar...

That's an interesting choice. :) Mechanically, one might protest and compare G'Kar to Starbuck. Prophets and angels, characters driven by their emotions and their human "heart," though neither were human.

On reflection, I tend to gravitate towards a visual production, like movies, television, film, live-action performances and the like, when the writer(s) screws around with archetypes. :) So, when G'Kar the moral prophet rises in contrast to G'Kar the self-assured snob and transforms to G'Kar the raging beast and back to the humbled prophet... I grab onto that roller-coaster with both hands.

That is something that Babylon 5 was able to do with its characters. "Star Trek" does not traditionally make use of those mechanics.

Only two Star Trek series that I watched had characters that were "round" - Voyager and Enterprise.... Every other Star Trek series starred "flat," predictable, characters that the story bounced off of. (I wasn't a fan of DS9, so didn't really watch much of it.) I do love good flat characters, though! They're great! But, it could very well be that the use of characters that are allowed to change, even forced to change, convinced me to watch more than anything else. (The character of Iago in Othello is likely my most beloved Shakespearean character, if that's any indication of the sort of thing that draws my attention.)

"

The mismatching/issues issue is interesting, because it can equally produce those unforeseen genius moments as it can the much more likely awkwardness. I'm an unrepentant fan of Marcus Cole, even though if you'd asked me if the show needed a snarky Space-brit with beautiful hair and an incel-level crush on the local bisexual firecracker...yeah, probably not.

I liked his character, even though I really didn't like that whole angle very much. Straczynski regarded the spin-offs as a mistake. Considering that coupled with the production issues surrounding the fifth season, it's not surprising that Cole's use and the stories surrounding "The Rangers" was also a bit troubled.

"

...Look at the iconic titles of the golden age and it's clear a show of their calibre hasn't been made in years: Deadwood, The Wire, Oz, Sopranos, etc.

These are the Vanguard bits that ended up being pushed through the lines in the "War Against Network Television." I don't know how the television environment was like in other countries, so you may have thoughts on that as well. But, when I was growing up there were four television stations - ABC, NBC, CBS, and "Public Brodcasting Service (PBS)." This latter was typically where avant gard productions were aired, the "Arts", educational programming, the "Arts" and imports from the BBC and the like were aired.

"Superstations" evolved to serve metro markets. I'm aware of Boston, Chicago and Atlanta having their own, with only Atlanta's "Turner" network becoming strong enough to compete with the "Big Three." (ABC, CBS, NBC.)

It's important to understand this history in order to understand the significance of HBO and its war against the Networks in creating independently produced programming.

In any business, you can only truly act to produce a product when you fully control not only the production of it, but your supply of raw material. This is a basic premise of business principles and HBO was faced with the fact that their longevity and success was entirely based on being supplied with product by third-parties. Up to the point they began producing their own content, they were nothing more than a big rack of VHS cassettes... HBO's first foray into this strategy wasn't independently produced fiction, but documentaries and "reality" shows. These were often a bit "edgy" and took advantage of the fact that since HBO was a subscription service, they could set their own "standards and practices." That meant... "boobs." It meant they could be as shocking and as titillating as they wished. And, they were. :)

What is surprising is that it took streaming services so long to figure out this basic business principle of controlling not only the means of production, but the raw materials used.

"

...We still have golden-age quality TV in most genres and on most platforms. I will agree that the stretchiness of shows made for streaming can be irritating. It's not exactly filler, but it's definitely a case where one longs for the tightness of a good 6-10 part british work, essentially a mini series...

It's worth noting that a mini-series comes with great freedom... There's an "end." The show isn't fighting to retain viewers and the gamble is entirely "up-front" with the writing on the page proclaiming its own quality. Either its good enough to produce or it is not - Question over, roll film. It's... friggin' "done." No mid-seaon changes, no desperate appeal to teen angst by adding "bewbs" and no terrifying story re-writes because what passed in the first season no longer "works." What's the end result that you remark on? Quality. Worth.

There's a difference in a sitcom that has to stand on its own every week or die and a series that's "going somewhere." The latter is much more risky, though, if someone makes a mistake on the drafting table. :)

"

Love me a good mini series, given I was raised on them, from 'V' through to 'Pillars of the Earth'. The 'limited series' we see now is a close analogue I think. Good Omens, for example.

Straczynski shares your opinion. In fact, he's remarked on the qualitative differences he experienced between British television/series and American productions. It's... one of the influences that inspired him to write Babylon 5. No joke. :)

I promise, I only stumbled upon this yesterday when looking up a favorite scene in Bab 5 for the heck of it. Because it's a glance at a writer's influences, it's the kind of think I enjoy. But, it's a bit longer than some would like. It's only offered in case you'd be interested in a career writer's thoughts, motivations, and not just a little bit of self-examination of themselves and their work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMNtVURpLzM

Good stuff, but likely best served up in small courses.

"

As for The Expanse, it makes it that bit harder to hate Bezos for saving it from the endless incompetence of SyFy.

Bezos could raise the Titanic using only the change in his couch-cushions... I give no credit to a water-seller profiting from their location in the middle of a desert. Amazon did it for the page-hits. :)

If Amazon wants to impress me, they should front productions of the Arts, documentaries, and educational programming, and offer that part of their subscription service for free. I don't know if any streaming service does that because I don't subscribe to any streaming services. I am often regarded as a Luddite because of that. All I need now is a smoking pipe to point with and frequent occasions to yell at the neighborhood kids when they play in my yard and my life-character will be complete.

Note: In examining my own thoughts inspired by this discussion, I have to note that there is one particular issue that causes me to be frustrated with an episode in any series. An episodic show, needing to cram everything into forty-five minutes or less, often has to... "just do it." What happens is that a story element is just too big to cram into one episode, but it's absolutely needed to complete that episode's story. You may have seen this as well, considering your love of a good mini-series, which doesn't run afoul of this problem.

eg: The story-teller needs to do something, but it would take too long to properly do it, so... they just skip that development part and expedite the thing that must be done. Why does a character undergo what may be a redefining moment in their life with little more than an "OK, whatevs"? It's because that soap commercial has to air in five minutes.. Is there any time to fix something like that? No. It's impossible. It can't be revisited in another episode because another story has to be told that week. Things like that have to be prepared properly and remarks of "bad writing" often involve these unfortunate practicalities. Just a thought. :)

I'm going to ease off on our not-so-little tangent for now, Mork. But it's been thoroughly enjoyable. I'm glad I sat through B5 if only to enable it! ;)