Caprica On SyFy: 1/29
- Thread starter silverskyes402
- Start date
Re: Caprica On SyFy: 1/22
Okay I'm starting to side with you now. :lol B5 definitely had a much better story, IMO, than BSG. It's arguably better, but I think the mainstream was turned off of it because of all the alien characters. That is why BSG became more popular in the mainstream.
Okay I'm starting to side with you now. :lol B5 definitely had a much better story, IMO, than BSG. It's arguably better, but I think the mainstream was turned off of it because of all the alien characters. That is why BSG became more popular in the mainstream.
Kerr Avon
Master Member
Re: Caprica On SyFy: 1/22
Of course! At the end of B5 you felt something was ACCOMPLISHED. Mankind and the other alien races had shrugged off the First Ones whose machinations were manipulating their very existance and development. Earth had freed itself from a tyrrant. The homeworld of the Narn was freed from Centauri occupation. It was the beginning of the Fourth Age of Mankind. The universe wasn't without it's troubles, but ultimately peace was settling in across the races.
In BSG we got to see everything start all over again from the beginning, that nothing ultimately was learned, and everything that happened, well, "God did it."
Of course! At the end of B5 you felt something was ACCOMPLISHED. Mankind and the other alien races had shrugged off the First Ones whose machinations were manipulating their very existance and development. Earth had freed itself from a tyrrant. The homeworld of the Narn was freed from Centauri occupation. It was the beginning of the Fourth Age of Mankind. The universe wasn't without it's troubles, but ultimately peace was settling in across the races.
In BSG we got to see everything start all over again from the beginning, that nothing ultimately was learned, and everything that happened, well, "God did it."
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Caprica On SyFy: 1/22
I find it to be better plotted than Moore's story, yeah. It's clearly more structured and planned out. I suspect you feel it's merely a synopsis of this happened and then that happened, and then the bad guys lost and such, and that probably has to do more with the broader characters in B5. Admittedly, the B5 characters are not terribly complicated or nuanced. That said, I find it to be a far more emotionally satisfying conclusion even in spite of that fact by the time it's over and done with.
Let me put it this way.
I was a huge Sopranos fan in the first three seasons. I thought it was an awesome show. By the time they hit the 4th season, I was getting a sense that things were starting to go off the rails. I watched the 5th season thinking that it was perhaps building towards some kind of conclusion, and then by the time I watched the first half of the 6th season, I KNEW that David Chase had NO IDEA where he was taking these characters. None. He was just meandering around, "letting the characters write themselves." I get that writers do this. I don't like this. It just feels like the characters are aimlessly doing stuff because the writers said "Wouldn't it be interesting if so and so did such and such" but it doesn't really have much of a point after a while. So I quit watching the show. When I heard about the finale of the Sopranos, I knew I'd made the right choice and I knew my estimation of David Chase as a writer was correct: he can't write plot for ****. He lost his focus and indulged in random explorations of his characters for no real purpose. Some say that IS the purpose. I disagree.
Regardless, Ron Moore is on record as saying that Chase's end to the Sopranos was pure genius. I think that says a LOT about him. As I've said, I think Moore chafes at the feeling that he's constrained in his ability to let his characters do whatever the hell THEY want to do while he just sort of gets to channel them. I think he feels that if he's a slave to plot, he loses some of his freedom in exploring the characters. And you know what? I think it's a GOOD thing when writers lose some of their freedom in that respect because it keeps them FOCUSED.
Now, contrast both of those shows to a show like The Wire. The Wire, in my estimation, is the PERFECT balance between a focused plot and clearly realized characters. The Wire paid off all of its little twists and did so in a way that felt natural. You might get some random episode that explored a character a bunch but it was never PURELY for the sake of exploring the character in a way that'd never really matter later. It all built on itself, and it all was structured in a way that gave it a natural conclusion at the end of not only each season, but several of the season arcs, and the finale of the entire show. If Ron Moore was such a badass writer, I'd expect him to be able to do the same kind of thing. He can't, though. Or at least couldn't with BSG. And his love of David Chase's approach to The Sopranos suggests to me that not only is he unable to do that, he doesn't even really want to.
I find it to be better plotted than Moore's story, yeah. It's clearly more structured and planned out. I suspect you feel it's merely a synopsis of this happened and then that happened, and then the bad guys lost and such, and that probably has to do more with the broader characters in B5. Admittedly, the B5 characters are not terribly complicated or nuanced. That said, I find it to be a far more emotionally satisfying conclusion even in spite of that fact by the time it's over and done with.
Let me put it this way.
I was a huge Sopranos fan in the first three seasons. I thought it was an awesome show. By the time they hit the 4th season, I was getting a sense that things were starting to go off the rails. I watched the 5th season thinking that it was perhaps building towards some kind of conclusion, and then by the time I watched the first half of the 6th season, I KNEW that David Chase had NO IDEA where he was taking these characters. None. He was just meandering around, "letting the characters write themselves." I get that writers do this. I don't like this. It just feels like the characters are aimlessly doing stuff because the writers said "Wouldn't it be interesting if so and so did such and such" but it doesn't really have much of a point after a while. So I quit watching the show. When I heard about the finale of the Sopranos, I knew I'd made the right choice and I knew my estimation of David Chase as a writer was correct: he can't write plot for ****. He lost his focus and indulged in random explorations of his characters for no real purpose. Some say that IS the purpose. I disagree.
Regardless, Ron Moore is on record as saying that Chase's end to the Sopranos was pure genius. I think that says a LOT about him. As I've said, I think Moore chafes at the feeling that he's constrained in his ability to let his characters do whatever the hell THEY want to do while he just sort of gets to channel them. I think he feels that if he's a slave to plot, he loses some of his freedom in exploring the characters. And you know what? I think it's a GOOD thing when writers lose some of their freedom in that respect because it keeps them FOCUSED.
Now, contrast both of those shows to a show like The Wire. The Wire, in my estimation, is the PERFECT balance between a focused plot and clearly realized characters. The Wire paid off all of its little twists and did so in a way that felt natural. You might get some random episode that explored a character a bunch but it was never PURELY for the sake of exploring the character in a way that'd never really matter later. It all built on itself, and it all was structured in a way that gave it a natural conclusion at the end of not only each season, but several of the season arcs, and the finale of the entire show. If Ron Moore was such a badass writer, I'd expect him to be able to do the same kind of thing. He can't, though. Or at least couldn't with BSG. And his love of David Chase's approach to The Sopranos suggests to me that not only is he unable to do that, he doesn't even really want to.
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Re: Caprica On SyFy: 1/22
Solo, we clearly have different takes on what constitutes good dramatic writing. And that’s cool. Suffice it to say I have a very high opinion of Ron Moore and David Chase, both in terms of the way they approach their craft in general, and the ways in which they chose to end their respective series in particular.
Lol.
I was Bob's TA back when he was a lowly college writing prof. He's the one who taught me what a deus ex machina is in the first place, and if he knew how badly the phrase was being misused around these parts he'd probably throw up. :lol
Bob's a huge BS:G fan btw (not surprisingly, Ron Moore was one of his students).
Anyway, getting back to Caprica, I think the show has promise and I’ll continue to follow it until a) I lose interest, or b) it gets canceled.
Solo, we clearly have different takes on what constitutes good dramatic writing. And that’s cool. Suffice it to say I have a very high opinion of Ron Moore and David Chase, both in terms of the way they approach their craft in general, and the ways in which they chose to end their respective series in particular.
"...and don't you dare bring in a deus ex machina!"
Lol.
I was Bob's TA back when he was a lowly college writing prof. He's the one who taught me what a deus ex machina is in the first place, and if he knew how badly the phrase was being misused around these parts he'd probably throw up. :lol
Bob's a huge BS:G fan btw (not surprisingly, Ron Moore was one of his students).
Anyway, getting back to Caprica, I think the show has promise and I’ll continue to follow it until a) I lose interest, or b) it gets canceled.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Caprica On SyFy: 1/22
I'll grant you that the literary term of "deus ex machina" in the sense of "Came totally out of left field and merely serves to happily resolve an otherwise irresolvable dilemma" doesn't exactly apply to BSG, if you also point to moments previously in the series where the invisible "hand of God" is somehow felt. (IE: the one religious woman being taken out by a landmine, Starbuck's revival, etc.)
I will say, however, that (A) I don't think those notions generally fit particularly well in science fiction, and (B) I think they basically mishandle the whole approach to the "mysteries" of BSG. While I don't personally require absolute explanation of all details in a story to feel satisfied, the ending of BSG feels like a cheat in terms of how it handles its mysteries. It handles its characters exceptionally well, but it still seems like Moore was writing by the seat of his pants and making it up as he went along. He's admitted as much on at least some of the details. I think that's sloppy. You disagree.
If the guy pictured above taught you and Moore, and if he happens to love this particular style of storytelling (a la Moore, Chase, etc.), it's not a big surprise that you too would dig this approach.
I find it entertaining in some contexts. Sometimes an exploration of characters for the sake of exploring characters is all I want, and the end result is irrelevant. I can often enjoy that if there hasn't been some overarching "mystery" or some constant "plotline" that's been present throughout the whole story and which is never actually resolved. But when you DO have a plotline that you've built up, when you DO have some big "mystery," simply waving your hand and saying "Ah, but I'm an artist so I don't care about these trifling matters. It's the characters, stupid," is a load of crap to me.
Again, it's about context. Don't string me along for several seasons, promising or at least strongly suggesting a grand conclusion and then either refuse to deliver, or give me some offhanded "Eh, couldn't be bothered" solution. On the other hand, sometimes the end result is not the point and it's all about the journey, so even if there's a "sad" ending of some sort, it still feels right.
The Wire didn't end on a particularly upbeat note on any one of its seasons, including the ultimate finale of the show. Some aspects were upbeat, others were fairly cynical, bordering on despairing. But it worked, and it felt natural. I didn't need all the "bad guys" to get caught, or the "good guys" to win to enjoy it. But I did need the drama to be paid off effectively after having been built up over the course of each season and across multiple seasons. I got that with The Wire. I didn't get that with BSG. YMMV (and apparently does).
I'll grant you that the literary term of "deus ex machina" in the sense of "Came totally out of left field and merely serves to happily resolve an otherwise irresolvable dilemma" doesn't exactly apply to BSG, if you also point to moments previously in the series where the invisible "hand of God" is somehow felt. (IE: the one religious woman being taken out by a landmine, Starbuck's revival, etc.)
I will say, however, that (A) I don't think those notions generally fit particularly well in science fiction, and (B) I think they basically mishandle the whole approach to the "mysteries" of BSG. While I don't personally require absolute explanation of all details in a story to feel satisfied, the ending of BSG feels like a cheat in terms of how it handles its mysteries. It handles its characters exceptionally well, but it still seems like Moore was writing by the seat of his pants and making it up as he went along. He's admitted as much on at least some of the details. I think that's sloppy. You disagree.
If the guy pictured above taught you and Moore, and if he happens to love this particular style of storytelling (a la Moore, Chase, etc.), it's not a big surprise that you too would dig this approach.
I find it entertaining in some contexts. Sometimes an exploration of characters for the sake of exploring characters is all I want, and the end result is irrelevant. I can often enjoy that if there hasn't been some overarching "mystery" or some constant "plotline" that's been present throughout the whole story and which is never actually resolved. But when you DO have a plotline that you've built up, when you DO have some big "mystery," simply waving your hand and saying "Ah, but I'm an artist so I don't care about these trifling matters. It's the characters, stupid," is a load of crap to me.
Again, it's about context. Don't string me along for several seasons, promising or at least strongly suggesting a grand conclusion and then either refuse to deliver, or give me some offhanded "Eh, couldn't be bothered" solution. On the other hand, sometimes the end result is not the point and it's all about the journey, so even if there's a "sad" ending of some sort, it still feels right.
The Wire didn't end on a particularly upbeat note on any one of its seasons, including the ultimate finale of the show. Some aspects were upbeat, others were fairly cynical, bordering on despairing. But it worked, and it felt natural. I didn't need all the "bad guys" to get caught, or the "good guys" to win to enjoy it. But I did need the drama to be paid off effectively after having been built up over the course of each season and across multiple seasons. I got that with The Wire. I didn't get that with BSG. YMMV (and apparently does).
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Re: Caprica On SyFy: 1/22
It's not a "style" at all. Just good, old fashioned five-part dramatic structure of the sort that's been around since the time of Euirpides.
Anyway, the guy pictured is "screenwriting guru" Robert McKee. Another former student, Charlie Kaufman, wrote Bob into one of his movies (Adaptation), and Brian Cox's performance is spot on...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVzR8zIvoA
Sorry to go further OT, but it's a fun scene if you've never seen it.
It's not a "style" at all. Just good, old fashioned five-part dramatic structure of the sort that's been around since the time of Euirpides.
Anyway, the guy pictured is "screenwriting guru" Robert McKee. Another former student, Charlie Kaufman, wrote Bob into one of his movies (Adaptation), and Brian Cox's performance is spot on...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVzR8zIvoA
Sorry to go further OT, but it's a fun scene if you've never seen it.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Caprica On SyFy: 1/22
The "style" I'm referring to is leaving your audience hanging at the end or teasing them out and then not really resolving things or saying "Well, it's up to you to decide how it ends. But my part in telling the story is over with. Bye now!"
What element of five-part dramatic structure do you see in BSG or the Sopranos? I mean, admittedly, I didn't watch the second half of the last season on the Sopranos, so I don't really know where the episode would fit in that sense (Denoument? It doesnt' quite seem to be that...).
With BSG, I can sort of see it, I just don't think it's a particularly effective resolution. I mean, yes, you get your resolution, but the "deus ex machina" element that pisses people off (yeah yeah, I know it's not exactly a deus ex machina) which seems to function as the vehicle by which the resolution is achieved just seems like a very "couldn't be bothered" device. At the moment where everyone is frozen with a gun pointed at their head (and pointing a gun at someone else's head), when all hope appears lost for the Colonials and when it looks like everyone's gonna kill each other, oops! An asteroid hits Racetrack's Raptor and the nukes get launched which somehow manages to save the day.
Well. Isn't that convenient. Likewise, isn't Baltar's explanation for what the HELL is going on convenient as an 11th hour answer to the show's great mysteries. And, of course, the answer to the mysteries is "Well...it's a mystery."
Question:
Does your view of this as a satisfying, effective conclusion/revelation derive from the position that the five-part dramatic structure is satisfied by virtue of where the characters end up independent of how they get there?
What about the whole issue of "the mystery" and how that was so heavily emphasized to audiences? How do you address that with the response of "It's five-part dramatic structure"? I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm genuinely curious. We've got lots of audience members on this board. We don't have that many writers. Moore's response of "It's the characters, stupid" was rather a lousy explanation (not to mention that it suggests he himself distinguishes between "plot" and "characters" -- and if it doesn't, his answer doesn't really explain what he thinks).
What about the criticism that he just sort of made it up as he went, to wit: the identities of the "Final Four" not even being known initially or indeed when we were already at least two (if not two and a half) seasons in?
Or is the answer simply "The characters must change and must progress by virtue of the things they experience. You can set them on a path to do this by following 5-part structure, but remember, the key is that they go through these points and are changed at the end. The 'plot' is the vehicle by which they get there. No more, no less."
The "style" I'm referring to is leaving your audience hanging at the end or teasing them out and then not really resolving things or saying "Well, it's up to you to decide how it ends. But my part in telling the story is over with. Bye now!"
What element of five-part dramatic structure do you see in BSG or the Sopranos? I mean, admittedly, I didn't watch the second half of the last season on the Sopranos, so I don't really know where the episode would fit in that sense (Denoument? It doesnt' quite seem to be that...).
With BSG, I can sort of see it, I just don't think it's a particularly effective resolution. I mean, yes, you get your resolution, but the "deus ex machina" element that pisses people off (yeah yeah, I know it's not exactly a deus ex machina) which seems to function as the vehicle by which the resolution is achieved just seems like a very "couldn't be bothered" device. At the moment where everyone is frozen with a gun pointed at their head (and pointing a gun at someone else's head), when all hope appears lost for the Colonials and when it looks like everyone's gonna kill each other, oops! An asteroid hits Racetrack's Raptor and the nukes get launched which somehow manages to save the day.
Well. Isn't that convenient. Likewise, isn't Baltar's explanation for what the HELL is going on convenient as an 11th hour answer to the show's great mysteries. And, of course, the answer to the mysteries is "Well...it's a mystery."
Question:
Does your view of this as a satisfying, effective conclusion/revelation derive from the position that the five-part dramatic structure is satisfied by virtue of where the characters end up independent of how they get there?
What about the whole issue of "the mystery" and how that was so heavily emphasized to audiences? How do you address that with the response of "It's five-part dramatic structure"? I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm genuinely curious. We've got lots of audience members on this board. We don't have that many writers. Moore's response of "It's the characters, stupid" was rather a lousy explanation (not to mention that it suggests he himself distinguishes between "plot" and "characters" -- and if it doesn't, his answer doesn't really explain what he thinks).
What about the criticism that he just sort of made it up as he went, to wit: the identities of the "Final Four" not even being known initially or indeed when we were already at least two (if not two and a half) seasons in?
Or is the answer simply "The characters must change and must progress by virtue of the things they experience. You can set them on a path to do this by following 5-part structure, but remember, the key is that they go through these points and are changed at the end. The 'plot' is the vehicle by which they get there. No more, no less."
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Re: Caprica On SyFy: 1/22
Well, five-part dramatic structure simply refers to the basic elements of story construction, i.e. inciting incident, complicating action, crisis, climax and resolution. All stories employ these elements to greater or lesser effect.
In the case of BS:G Moore combined elements of the classical “archplot” (all questions answered, all emotions satisfied) with the “antiplot” (unanswered questions, temporal discontinuity, ambiguous resolution). Moore is not the first to do this of course; The Graduate, for example, ends on a famously uncertain note, and the Coen Brothers have a made a career out of mixing elements of archplot/ antiplot. It’s tricky to do, and the effect is not for everyone, but when done well the results can be sublime for those of us who are at least as interested in the journey as we are the destination.
American audiences, by and large, dislike “open” endings. There’s something deeply ingrained in our culture that makes us fond of closure and suspicious of ambiguity, and that’s fine. The problem I have is when a storyteller is attacked for being “sloppy” or “lazy” for relying on “accident” or “coincidence” when the events in question are earned by a savvy combination of foreshadowing and payoff. For example…
Do you honestly think the writers included this “accidental” beat because they thought it would be easier than coming up with something more conventional (“eject the warp core!”).
I explained why the above fails to qualify as dues ex machina in a previous post. At the risk of repeating myself, writers occasionally engineer “accidents” into their plots because, as we all know, accident and coincidence are a part of life, as is the question “Is there any such thing as an accident?” Given the series’ thematic preoccupation with the spirit world (for lack of a better term) Moore had earned the right to set up the sort of divine “ticking clock” exemplified by the raptor launch -- just as David Lean and Robert Bolt had earned the right to have Alec Guinness collapse over the that explosives detonator in “River Kwai.” In both cases the pay-off was superbly foreshadowed, and I can assure you there was nothing “easy” about it.
If I understand your question, the answer is no.
I find the conclusion of BS:G satisfying because Moore took his characters to the proverbial end of the line dramatically speaking. That is to say, when all was said and done there is no other action the protagonists could have taken to get what they wanted/ needed. What they wanted/ needed was a home where they’d be safe from the Cylons; a clean slate, if you will, and that’s exactly what they got. I know the “sending the spaceships into the sun” thing pissed a lot of people off, but given the Colonials’ demonstrated lack of wisdom where technology is concerned, I thought it was a thematically fitting conclusion. I wouldn’t expect everyone to agree, but that’s something to celebrate IMO.
I think the “mystery” card was overplayed quite frankly, but given the show’s other strengths it’s a shortcoming I’m willing to forgive.
Plot and character are one phenomenon seen from two points of view. The decisions characters make simultaneously shape their inner natures and advance the plot. In that regard, I think Moore’s answer is pretty revealing. The phrase “character-driven story” is redundant. All stories are character-driven.
IMO, writing a season’s worth of television is (or three season’s worth) should be an evolving journey. Some creative corners can’t be seen past in advance, and no line of exposition is precious. If an idea or plot thread contributes to the evolution of the story, great, keep it, but should the narrative take a sudden turn I say the writer is well within his rights to adjust or abandon the original concept to follow the evolving story.
A television series is not a rigid construct; writing is discovery. Clearly some people are thrown by the notion of a writer “making it up as he goes along” but in this case I doubt the end result would be half as interesting or compelling had the plot been cast in stone from the get-go with no allowance for surprise or inspiration.
That said, the fact that the conclusion works as well as it does leads me to believe Moore had a pretty clear vision for where he wanted his characters to wind up (irrespective of the occasionally tortuous route he took getting them there).
Thing is, if a writer knows where he wants to go thematically it can buy him a lot of wiggle room narratively. Certainly there are those in the audience who insist that every narrative “I” be dotted and every expository “T” crossed -- which is why, I suppose, God made Babylon 5.
Well, five-part dramatic structure simply refers to the basic elements of story construction, i.e. inciting incident, complicating action, crisis, climax and resolution. All stories employ these elements to greater or lesser effect.
In the case of BS:G Moore combined elements of the classical “archplot” (all questions answered, all emotions satisfied) with the “antiplot” (unanswered questions, temporal discontinuity, ambiguous resolution). Moore is not the first to do this of course; The Graduate, for example, ends on a famously uncertain note, and the Coen Brothers have a made a career out of mixing elements of archplot/ antiplot. It’s tricky to do, and the effect is not for everyone, but when done well the results can be sublime for those of us who are at least as interested in the journey as we are the destination.
American audiences, by and large, dislike “open” endings. There’s something deeply ingrained in our culture that makes us fond of closure and suspicious of ambiguity, and that’s fine. The problem I have is when a storyteller is attacked for being “sloppy” or “lazy” for relying on “accident” or “coincidence” when the events in question are earned by a savvy combination of foreshadowing and payoff. For example…
Do you honestly think the writers included this “accidental” beat because they thought it would be easier than coming up with something more conventional (“eject the warp core!”).
I explained why the above fails to qualify as dues ex machina in a previous post. At the risk of repeating myself, writers occasionally engineer “accidents” into their plots because, as we all know, accident and coincidence are a part of life, as is the question “Is there any such thing as an accident?” Given the series’ thematic preoccupation with the spirit world (for lack of a better term) Moore had earned the right to set up the sort of divine “ticking clock” exemplified by the raptor launch -- just as David Lean and Robert Bolt had earned the right to have Alec Guinness collapse over the that explosives detonator in “River Kwai.” In both cases the pay-off was superbly foreshadowed, and I can assure you there was nothing “easy” about it.
If I understand your question, the answer is no.
I find the conclusion of BS:G satisfying because Moore took his characters to the proverbial end of the line dramatically speaking. That is to say, when all was said and done there is no other action the protagonists could have taken to get what they wanted/ needed. What they wanted/ needed was a home where they’d be safe from the Cylons; a clean slate, if you will, and that’s exactly what they got. I know the “sending the spaceships into the sun” thing pissed a lot of people off, but given the Colonials’ demonstrated lack of wisdom where technology is concerned, I thought it was a thematically fitting conclusion. I wouldn’t expect everyone to agree, but that’s something to celebrate IMO.
I think the “mystery” card was overplayed quite frankly, but given the show’s other strengths it’s a shortcoming I’m willing to forgive.
Plot and character are one phenomenon seen from two points of view. The decisions characters make simultaneously shape their inner natures and advance the plot. In that regard, I think Moore’s answer is pretty revealing. The phrase “character-driven story” is redundant. All stories are character-driven.
IMO, writing a season’s worth of television is (or three season’s worth) should be an evolving journey. Some creative corners can’t be seen past in advance, and no line of exposition is precious. If an idea or plot thread contributes to the evolution of the story, great, keep it, but should the narrative take a sudden turn I say the writer is well within his rights to adjust or abandon the original concept to follow the evolving story.
A television series is not a rigid construct; writing is discovery. Clearly some people are thrown by the notion of a writer “making it up as he goes along” but in this case I doubt the end result would be half as interesting or compelling had the plot been cast in stone from the get-go with no allowance for surprise or inspiration.
That said, the fact that the conclusion works as well as it does leads me to believe Moore had a pretty clear vision for where he wanted his characters to wind up (irrespective of the occasionally tortuous route he took getting them there).
Thing is, if a writer knows where he wants to go thematically it can buy him a lot of wiggle room narratively. Certainly there are those in the audience who insist that every narrative “I” be dotted and every expository “T” crossed -- which is why, I suppose, God made Babylon 5.
JediG60racer
Sr Member
Re: Caprica On SyFy: 1/22
That interestingly enough parallels the historical/theological discussion that's been going on since the 1930s about evolutionary theology vs. revolutionary theology... whether polytheism and monotheism arose independently, concurrently, or if one led to the other. Kaufman and other theologians of the early 20th century had a lot of arguments about it.
That interestingly enough parallels the historical/theological discussion that's been going on since the 1930s about evolutionary theology vs. revolutionary theology... whether polytheism and monotheism arose independently, concurrently, or if one led to the other. Kaufman and other theologians of the early 20th century had a lot of arguments about it.
firesprite
Master Member
Re: Caprica On SyFy: 1/22
It's interesting that B:5 was brought into this discussion as a contrast to BS:G. I love both of the shows (and own both of them on dvd), but for very different reasons.
The endings are a prime example of this:
As for the Sopranos... well, I only caught a couple seasons of it. I enjoyed what I saw, but I haven't been able to work up enough interest to get my hands on the rest of the seasons. Yes, I can see how fans of the show would be highly pissed off by the ending (or perceived lack thereof), but that's the way that the creator of the show felt that it should end. Honestly, considering the fact that the show almost didn't come back at one point, isn't going out the way the writers want it to be the best we could ask for the shows we love?
It's interesting that B:5 was brought into this discussion as a contrast to BS:G. I love both of the shows (and own both of them on dvd), but for very different reasons.
The endings are a prime example of this:
- the B:5 ending was very good tv writing. It wrapped things up appropriately enough that you felt satisfied by it, but it left enough room in many cases that you could imagine what might happen with these characters after the show's end.
- the BS:G finally, though.. was more like real life. Not all the answers are found and the character's success in their new world was far from assured. If it were written more along the lines of a B:5 ending, we would have been shown the enemy Cylons meeting their ends (and I mean something along the lines of a scene of Cavil cursing the colonials, god, and anyone else he could think of while the basestar burned around him) rather than letting us use logic when we saw the basestar destroyed.
As for the Sopranos... well, I only caught a couple seasons of it. I enjoyed what I saw, but I haven't been able to work up enough interest to get my hands on the rest of the seasons. Yes, I can see how fans of the show would be highly pissed off by the ending (or perceived lack thereof), but that's the way that the creator of the show felt that it should end. Honestly, considering the fact that the show almost didn't come back at one point, isn't going out the way the writers want it to be the best we could ask for the shows we love?
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Caprica On SyFy: 1/22
Interesting explanation, and thanks for the response. I agree that Moore tries to balance the "archplot" and "antiplot" (if I understand the terms correctly). I'm just not sure he succeeds, at least in terms of what I'd like to have seen.
I still disagree that he didn't quite earn the "asteroid bump", but I think that has to do with a couple different things, including how heavily the "mystery" was trumpeted, and how subtle the "mystic" elements were. While RELIGION played a heavy role in the show, my recollection is that the actual mystical (IE: there's no explanation save the divine or something like it) elements were downplayed. They did show up here and there, but it was always addressed in the sense of "It's a mystery, stay tuned for the explanation." At least that's how it came across to me. With the exception of Head Six, and the one gal who got aced by the landmine on Kobol, I don't really recall any characters really continually saying "No, you don't get it. THIS IS GOD'S/THE GODS' DOING. Seriously. I'm not kidding. It's the hand of the divine, not some explainable coincidence." At least until Baltar's "conversion" by the end of the show.
Now, that may be due to my failing to recall certain elements, or it may be due to the seeming incongruity of the mystical in a science fiction (as opposed to space fantasy) show, but at least for me, that element wasn't handled as effectively.
As a separate issue, the Racetrack-bump, for me, is the far more egregious resolving device, mostly because it feels like it robs the characters of a certain degree of power. I suppose I dislike it as well because, again, it feels incongruous in a science fiction series to have the hand of the divine shooting pool with asteroids. That may just be my own rigid sense of genres, but I also think some of it is that Moore didn't strike quite enough balance between the "real" world and the presence of the mystical in it. I guess I could've used more "heads up! God incoming!" signposts along the way, and perhaps had them be less questionable "Is it the divine? Is it coincidence? Is it something else? Stay tuned!" and more "No, REALLY it's God."
I could handle the "Kara is an angel" thing by the time we got to it, but mostly because by THAT point we'd already had the Racetrack bump, she'd found her body, and Baltar had explained WTF was going on via the divine. Plus we'd had Head Six and Head Baltar revealed to be what they were, so, ok, sure, why not make Kara an angel or something like it.
Anyway, back to your comments.
I actually had very little problem with the "spaceships into the sun" thing. THAT part I felt made perfect sense, despite how everyone else seemed to feel it was ridiculous and goofy. I mean, it IS ridiculous and goofy, but once you've explained "Um, no, seriously, God just nuked the cylons out of existence because they couldn't get their act together. You want to make this work? Then Sam's got one last job to do," it worked for me. So that part I was cool with.
However....
...this is my biggest gripe and the part where I condemn Moore. I agree that his characters end up exactly where they ought to be. The end of the story for each of teh characters, given what's come before, makes perfect sense to me. The Chief is a broken man and heads off to...er...Scotland? Hope he enjoys blue paint.
Adama on his lonely hill....that was perfect for me. Lee and Kara's goodbye juxtaposed against their first flirtation and near consummation of a romantic relationship...again, perfect. And the fact that they really truly did find "Earth" (as in OUR Earth), was also perfect.
But the "mysteries..." Geez. Again, talk about a rooster-tease. Moore can blame the network for wanting to build the mystery up, but I split the blame equally among the network and Moore in how that was handled. The network could've left it alone (both the mystery thing and Season 3...) and let Moore do his thing. I suspect if that were the case, it would've been handled better. But likewise, once Moore had established all this mystery stuff...to then pay it off (or not) the way he did...that was a mistake. I'm sorry, but you don't hype up a mystery like that just to say "Well, it's a mystery. And by the way it never mattered anyway." You may not mind that as much as I do, though.
To be clear, I don't actually mind open-ended resolutions. I really DON'T need to know "But what happened next?" most of the time. I'd have been happy with the end of the first Terminator film with Linda Hamilton driving off into the desert, the future unknown. I'm totally cool with not resolving each and every plot device that gets you from point A to point B. But it heavily depends on HOW that's handled. If an Agatha Christie book ended with "Ah well. I guess it's a mystery. But hey, that's life. Sometimes you don't get the answers", I'd throw the damn book across the room. Much as Brian Cox's character would rant about how his time had just been wasted in a "real life" story where nothing happens, I'd rant about how my time had been wasted in a "real life" mystery where there is no real resolution or the explanation is cursory at best and dismissed as "not the point." If it's not the point, then why'd you TELL me it was the point at the start? And to me, BSG (whether via Moore or the network) TOLD me that the big mysteries were a big part of "the point," yet at the end they're resolved in what, to me, felt like a cursory manner, and Moore then says "Not the point. Characters, dummy."
That does throw me, I'll admit. I mean, I recognize that writing requires a gradual evolution of your story, but to my way of thinking, you gotta plan ahead to avoid "WTF?!" moments for the audience. Granted, SOME "WTF?!" moments are wonderful IF you then pay it off and give the audience an "Ahhhh NOW it makes sense" moment later, but I tend to enjoy shows that are far more planned in advance and far less "We really didn't know we were gonna do that when we sat down to write that episode." I appreciate shows that plan things one season at a time, knowing generally where they want to take the characters and how they want to get them there. The nitty-gritty details don't all need to be fleshed out, but the major forks in the road do. That Moore kind of off-the-cuff handled the Final Four the way he did...I find that to be a kind of self-indulgent writing style, and a risky one at that. The "Wouldn't it be interesting if I suddenly did....THIS!" approach to "making it up as you go" I think can be problematic.
That's different from deciding earlier on that you're going to take your character along a different path than you might've telegraphed to the audience -- but you build that gradually. I don't think Moore always did that particularly well. I think he usually (mostly) paid it off at the end, but I don't think he always handled that stuff all that well leading up to it.
Thematically, yeah, you have wiggle room, but to me, that doesn't really excuse the whole "Uh....I dunno. Let's just make Sam a cylon. Wouldn't that be cool?" approach. I think yuo can end up making it work....mostly...but I think it'd work better if you knew what you wanted to do with the characters a bit better than that.
As for Babylon 5, yeah, I get it. Serious writers dismiss it as too pulpy or whatever. And I do think that it's very "traditional" as a story and that its characters seem a lot less "real" than those on BSG. But I think that isn't entirely due to the fact that JMS knew where he wanted to take everyone and had intricately plotted the whole thing out (including "trapdoors" if someone like, oh, Adrea Thompson said "I'm outta here" abruptly). I think you can still have intricately plotted paths for your characters while still making them real based on how you write them.
It just seems to me that a lot of people seem to have the attitude that if something is meticulously planned out, the characters will automatically be less "real." I don't buy that. I think you can do both. I also think that you can have archplots and still have them be emotionally complex, nuanced, and satisfying. I think generally speaking that planning ahead is better than making it up on the fly. Failure to do that can lead to scenarios where, at the end of things, you look back and say "Yeah, but they really didn't connect these points, and they REALLY didn't lead you into that effectively..."
Case in point: Leia tonguing Luke in ESB. Yeah. Could've used some better plotting there... :sick
Now, I don't think any of Moore's characters were handled with THAT level of ham-handedness in the writing, mind you. Moore did avoid that kind of "Wait, but if you look back....that just doesn't make a damn bit of sense!" response (from me at least). But I still think he could've laid better groundwork, and I guess I just don't accept that it has to be an either/or proposition.
Interesting explanation, and thanks for the response. I agree that Moore tries to balance the "archplot" and "antiplot" (if I understand the terms correctly). I'm just not sure he succeeds, at least in terms of what I'd like to have seen.
I still disagree that he didn't quite earn the "asteroid bump", but I think that has to do with a couple different things, including how heavily the "mystery" was trumpeted, and how subtle the "mystic" elements were. While RELIGION played a heavy role in the show, my recollection is that the actual mystical (IE: there's no explanation save the divine or something like it) elements were downplayed. They did show up here and there, but it was always addressed in the sense of "It's a mystery, stay tuned for the explanation." At least that's how it came across to me. With the exception of Head Six, and the one gal who got aced by the landmine on Kobol, I don't really recall any characters really continually saying "No, you don't get it. THIS IS GOD'S/THE GODS' DOING. Seriously. I'm not kidding. It's the hand of the divine, not some explainable coincidence." At least until Baltar's "conversion" by the end of the show.
Now, that may be due to my failing to recall certain elements, or it may be due to the seeming incongruity of the mystical in a science fiction (as opposed to space fantasy) show, but at least for me, that element wasn't handled as effectively.
As a separate issue, the Racetrack-bump, for me, is the far more egregious resolving device, mostly because it feels like it robs the characters of a certain degree of power. I suppose I dislike it as well because, again, it feels incongruous in a science fiction series to have the hand of the divine shooting pool with asteroids. That may just be my own rigid sense of genres, but I also think some of it is that Moore didn't strike quite enough balance between the "real" world and the presence of the mystical in it. I guess I could've used more "heads up! God incoming!" signposts along the way, and perhaps had them be less questionable "Is it the divine? Is it coincidence? Is it something else? Stay tuned!" and more "No, REALLY it's God."
I could handle the "Kara is an angel" thing by the time we got to it, but mostly because by THAT point we'd already had the Racetrack bump, she'd found her body, and Baltar had explained WTF was going on via the divine. Plus we'd had Head Six and Head Baltar revealed to be what they were, so, ok, sure, why not make Kara an angel or something like it.
Anyway, back to your comments.
I actually had very little problem with the "spaceships into the sun" thing. THAT part I felt made perfect sense, despite how everyone else seemed to feel it was ridiculous and goofy. I mean, it IS ridiculous and goofy, but once you've explained "Um, no, seriously, God just nuked the cylons out of existence because they couldn't get their act together. You want to make this work? Then Sam's got one last job to do," it worked for me. So that part I was cool with.
However....
...this is my biggest gripe and the part where I condemn Moore. I agree that his characters end up exactly where they ought to be. The end of the story for each of teh characters, given what's come before, makes perfect sense to me. The Chief is a broken man and heads off to...er...Scotland? Hope he enjoys blue paint.
Adama on his lonely hill....that was perfect for me. Lee and Kara's goodbye juxtaposed against their first flirtation and near consummation of a romantic relationship...again, perfect. And the fact that they really truly did find "Earth" (as in OUR Earth), was also perfect. But the "mysteries..." Geez. Again, talk about a rooster-tease. Moore can blame the network for wanting to build the mystery up, but I split the blame equally among the network and Moore in how that was handled. The network could've left it alone (both the mystery thing and Season 3...) and let Moore do his thing. I suspect if that were the case, it would've been handled better. But likewise, once Moore had established all this mystery stuff...to then pay it off (or not) the way he did...that was a mistake. I'm sorry, but you don't hype up a mystery like that just to say "Well, it's a mystery. And by the way it never mattered anyway." You may not mind that as much as I do, though.
To be clear, I don't actually mind open-ended resolutions. I really DON'T need to know "But what happened next?" most of the time. I'd have been happy with the end of the first Terminator film with Linda Hamilton driving off into the desert, the future unknown. I'm totally cool with not resolving each and every plot device that gets you from point A to point B. But it heavily depends on HOW that's handled. If an Agatha Christie book ended with "Ah well. I guess it's a mystery. But hey, that's life. Sometimes you don't get the answers", I'd throw the damn book across the room. Much as Brian Cox's character would rant about how his time had just been wasted in a "real life" story where nothing happens, I'd rant about how my time had been wasted in a "real life" mystery where there is no real resolution or the explanation is cursory at best and dismissed as "not the point." If it's not the point, then why'd you TELL me it was the point at the start? And to me, BSG (whether via Moore or the network) TOLD me that the big mysteries were a big part of "the point," yet at the end they're resolved in what, to me, felt like a cursory manner, and Moore then says "Not the point. Characters, dummy."
That does throw me, I'll admit. I mean, I recognize that writing requires a gradual evolution of your story, but to my way of thinking, you gotta plan ahead to avoid "WTF?!" moments for the audience. Granted, SOME "WTF?!" moments are wonderful IF you then pay it off and give the audience an "Ahhhh NOW it makes sense" moment later, but I tend to enjoy shows that are far more planned in advance and far less "We really didn't know we were gonna do that when we sat down to write that episode." I appreciate shows that plan things one season at a time, knowing generally where they want to take the characters and how they want to get them there. The nitty-gritty details don't all need to be fleshed out, but the major forks in the road do. That Moore kind of off-the-cuff handled the Final Four the way he did...I find that to be a kind of self-indulgent writing style, and a risky one at that. The "Wouldn't it be interesting if I suddenly did....THIS!" approach to "making it up as you go" I think can be problematic.
That's different from deciding earlier on that you're going to take your character along a different path than you might've telegraphed to the audience -- but you build that gradually. I don't think Moore always did that particularly well. I think he usually (mostly) paid it off at the end, but I don't think he always handled that stuff all that well leading up to it.
Thematically, yeah, you have wiggle room, but to me, that doesn't really excuse the whole "Uh....I dunno. Let's just make Sam a cylon. Wouldn't that be cool?" approach. I think yuo can end up making it work....mostly...but I think it'd work better if you knew what you wanted to do with the characters a bit better than that.
As for Babylon 5, yeah, I get it. Serious writers dismiss it as too pulpy or whatever. And I do think that it's very "traditional" as a story and that its characters seem a lot less "real" than those on BSG. But I think that isn't entirely due to the fact that JMS knew where he wanted to take everyone and had intricately plotted the whole thing out (including "trapdoors" if someone like, oh, Adrea Thompson said "I'm outta here" abruptly). I think you can still have intricately plotted paths for your characters while still making them real based on how you write them.
It just seems to me that a lot of people seem to have the attitude that if something is meticulously planned out, the characters will automatically be less "real." I don't buy that. I think you can do both. I also think that you can have archplots and still have them be emotionally complex, nuanced, and satisfying. I think generally speaking that planning ahead is better than making it up on the fly. Failure to do that can lead to scenarios where, at the end of things, you look back and say "Yeah, but they really didn't connect these points, and they REALLY didn't lead you into that effectively..."
Case in point: Leia tonguing Luke in ESB. Yeah. Could've used some better plotting there... :sick
Now, I don't think any of Moore's characters were handled with THAT level of ham-handedness in the writing, mind you. Moore did avoid that kind of "Wait, but if you look back....that just doesn't make a damn bit of sense!" response (from me at least). But I still think he could've laid better groundwork, and I guess I just don't accept that it has to be an either/or proposition.
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Re: Caprica On SyFy: 1/22
The last sentence is telling.
As I’ve gotten older I find I tend to judge a work of art not so much on the basis of “what I'd like to have seen” but rather on the basis of what the work actually shows me. In the case of BS:G Ron Moore exceeded my expectations by leaps and bounds, and while I certainly respect the opinion of those who feel otherwise, I think it’s a testament to the richness and complexity of Moore’s vision that conversations such as this are still taking place.
If the subject of Man’s (or Synthetic Man’s) relationship with God has ever been more thoughtfully and creatively integrated into a science-fiction series I must have missed it. It’s one of the reasons I watched the show, and I’m an agnostic.
On the contrary, the “Racetrack-bump” empowered the characters to take action.
Look, if the beat in question had magically and single-handedly teleported our heroes to happily-ever-after land I might agree with your concerns. Such is not the case, however. Rather than ease our heroes’ burden it created a situation in which they were required to take a desperate action – a literal "leap" of faith, if you will – that forever changed their collective destiny.
Just as Obi-wan’s plea to Luke to “Use the Force” motivates an action that saves the Rebel Alliance at the climax of Star Wars so too does Racetrack’s errant missile sorte motivate an action that saves the Colonials at the climax of BS:G. The fact that both events are brought about by a “higher power” does nothing to undermine the power of the characters to shape their own fates; just the opposite, in fact.
Any more spiritual “signposts” and they would’ve had to air the series on the Christian Broadcasting Network. Seriously, did a single episode go by without one of the characters having some sort of prophetic vision?
In any case, the "No, REALLY it's God" thing is exactly the sort of narrative hand-holding I can do without. I have an imagination, and I'm grateful to Ron Moore for allowing me to use it with regard to the exact nature of the "deity" in question. I wish more filmmakers would follow his example, but given contemporary audiences' unwillingness to embrace "open" narratives I'm not holding my breath. Serves me right for having been weened on the French New Wave. Long live avant-garde cinema. :rolleyes
Having been exposed to marketing hype all my life I’m more or less immune. That said, I’d be curious to know, specifically, which mysteries were not resolved to your satisfaction.
I agree to an extent, but I also suspect that what constitutes a “WTF?!” moment to you may not to me. And vice-versa.
Mike Nichols version of “Catch 22” was planned down to the last frame. Filmed the same year, Robert Altman’s version of M*A*S*H was heavily improvised and shot on the fly. Guess which film we remember today.
I’m not saying that “meticulous planning” is automatically a bad thing, but I do believe there’s a lot to be said for a looser, more “open” approach to plotting. In a perfect world BS:G would be, well, perfect, but the assertion that Ron Moore “couldn’t be bothered” to tell a more satisfying story is bunk. From my perspective the man did the best he could, and generally speaking I found his story to be satisfying as hell.
Sometimes connecting a bunch of narrative dots isn’t as interesting, or satisfying, as leaving them un-connected. Which may explain why the filmed version of “2001” qualifies as a work of art whereas the novel does not. The book is filled with explanation, exposition, and connected dots; the movie is filled awe, mystery, and wonder. All things being equal, I’ll take the latter.
The last sentence is telling.
As I’ve gotten older I find I tend to judge a work of art not so much on the basis of “what I'd like to have seen” but rather on the basis of what the work actually shows me. In the case of BS:G Ron Moore exceeded my expectations by leaps and bounds, and while I certainly respect the opinion of those who feel otherwise, I think it’s a testament to the richness and complexity of Moore’s vision that conversations such as this are still taking place.
If the subject of Man’s (or Synthetic Man’s) relationship with God has ever been more thoughtfully and creatively integrated into a science-fiction series I must have missed it. It’s one of the reasons I watched the show, and I’m an agnostic.
On the contrary, the “Racetrack-bump” empowered the characters to take action.
Look, if the beat in question had magically and single-handedly teleported our heroes to happily-ever-after land I might agree with your concerns. Such is not the case, however. Rather than ease our heroes’ burden it created a situation in which they were required to take a desperate action – a literal "leap" of faith, if you will – that forever changed their collective destiny.
Just as Obi-wan’s plea to Luke to “Use the Force” motivates an action that saves the Rebel Alliance at the climax of Star Wars so too does Racetrack’s errant missile sorte motivate an action that saves the Colonials at the climax of BS:G. The fact that both events are brought about by a “higher power” does nothing to undermine the power of the characters to shape their own fates; just the opposite, in fact.
Any more spiritual “signposts” and they would’ve had to air the series on the Christian Broadcasting Network. Seriously, did a single episode go by without one of the characters having some sort of prophetic vision?
In any case, the "No, REALLY it's God" thing is exactly the sort of narrative hand-holding I can do without. I have an imagination, and I'm grateful to Ron Moore for allowing me to use it with regard to the exact nature of the "deity" in question. I wish more filmmakers would follow his example, but given contemporary audiences' unwillingness to embrace "open" narratives I'm not holding my breath. Serves me right for having been weened on the French New Wave. Long live avant-garde cinema. :rolleyes
Having been exposed to marketing hype all my life I’m more or less immune. That said, I’d be curious to know, specifically, which mysteries were not resolved to your satisfaction.
I agree to an extent, but I also suspect that what constitutes a “WTF?!” moment to you may not to me. And vice-versa.
Mike Nichols version of “Catch 22” was planned down to the last frame. Filmed the same year, Robert Altman’s version of M*A*S*H was heavily improvised and shot on the fly. Guess which film we remember today.
I’m not saying that “meticulous planning” is automatically a bad thing, but I do believe there’s a lot to be said for a looser, more “open” approach to plotting. In a perfect world BS:G would be, well, perfect, but the assertion that Ron Moore “couldn’t be bothered” to tell a more satisfying story is bunk. From my perspective the man did the best he could, and generally speaking I found his story to be satisfying as hell.
Sometimes connecting a bunch of narrative dots isn’t as interesting, or satisfying, as leaving them un-connected. Which may explain why the filmed version of “2001” qualifies as a work of art whereas the novel does not. The book is filled with explanation, exposition, and connected dots; the movie is filled awe, mystery, and wonder. All things being equal, I’ll take the latter.
Last edited:
On right now!
DLO Studios
Well-Known Member
I like it so far.
I got annoyed with the beginning. (All the flashing back and forth) I dunno, so far I'm not diggin' it. It's really killing the idea of badass Toasters for me. When I see the robot calling "her" friend it really just takes away from the whole experience. I'll give it a few more chances.
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Last night's episode lost me.
Based on the credits, it appears Ron Moore has little to do with the new series, other than having developed the pilot.
Moore's the pity.
Maybe the writers can turn things around, but they have a lot of work to do.
Let me know if things improve; I'll be watching Dexter, Glee, 24 and 30 Rock.
Based on the credits, it appears Ron Moore has little to do with the new series, other than having developed the pilot.
Moore's the pity.
Maybe the writers can turn things around, but they have a lot of work to do.
Let me know if things improve; I'll be watching Dexter, Glee, 24 and 30 Rock.
neosporing
Sr Member
i saw the original leaked pilot... and didn't recognize a number of scenes from the opening ... 'last time on caprica'...
were there added scenes to the aired pilot?
