ye cannot change the script, Jim!
Sunday, 27 June 2010 02:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Friends hosted a distributed-cooking Christmas In July last night, which means I'm lolling around the house still incredibly full of snacks and soup and turkey and Jo's amazing roast potatoes and baked potato gratin with the cream content of a small herd of Ayrshires (Jo and potatoes, it's the love story of the century). I didn't have room for the trifle, but since I made it (my signature Black Forest trifle, i.e. with black cherries and chocolate ganache on account of how I spit upon this custard/peaches nonsense) there's still half a one in the 'fridge. I'm eyeing it speculatively for lunch. Hmmm.
Last night was interesting because of the way a lot of the chit-chat was integrated with blog posts. In our sadly geeky crowd various people's blogs become almost another character at the table: they contribute to the conversation, sparking discussions and subsequently weaving in and out of them. We inevitably got onto Star Trek because I've been watching and blogging a fair amount of it, and I ended up both explaining the Wesley Crusher Problem to
diced_caret, and joining in a general excoriation of the writing in STNG Season 1.
This resulted in the best slightly drunken metaphor I've ever generated for the problem: those poor actors occasionally quite obviously approach their dialogue with the sort of dubious poke you'd give to a giant plate of something ethnic and unidentifiable you've just been served at a diplomatic function, and which is looking at you because it's full of eyeballs. As a result, they end up mouthing the more horrible bits of dialogue rather gingerly, with politely-concealed distaste. It's a pity, because the show actually has a very good cast (apart from some obviously ham guest stars), and they deserve to be given something better to say. It's also the basis of the Wesley Crusher problem - it's nothing to do with the unfortunate actor, the character's just really badly written, poor lad. So now I have a new insomnia cure: where before I used to lie awake at 3am whiling away the hours by designing lesson plans for Hogwarts Divination classes (I don't believe in divination, but anyone with half a brain for symbol analysis could do a better job than Sibyl), now I lie awake re-writing the most recently-watched STNG script to make the character and plot motivations actually, you know, make sense. It's really not that difficult.
I'm also interested in how far my sense of "OMG this is badly written!" is about writers who haven't yet hit their stride, and how much of it is simply about dated values for dialogue and acting. Even in the good episodes the beats seem slow to me, and the interchanges frequently stilted: is the same true of most TV from that time? As someone who's come to TV anachonistically, late and on DVD rather than in any contemporary sense, I really don't have the wherewithal for comparison. I darkly suspect, though, that Joss Whedon may have spoiled me.
On a completely unrelated note, this morning I stumbled across the deliriously happy concept of the Desert Bus video game, which made me giggle like a twit for several minutes. I am apparently a huge fan of ideas taken to their logical conclusion and beyond until surreality sets in.
Last night was interesting because of the way a lot of the chit-chat was integrated with blog posts. In our sadly geeky crowd various people's blogs become almost another character at the table: they contribute to the conversation, sparking discussions and subsequently weaving in and out of them. We inevitably got onto Star Trek because I've been watching and blogging a fair amount of it, and I ended up both explaining the Wesley Crusher Problem to
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
This resulted in the best slightly drunken metaphor I've ever generated for the problem: those poor actors occasionally quite obviously approach their dialogue with the sort of dubious poke you'd give to a giant plate of something ethnic and unidentifiable you've just been served at a diplomatic function, and which is looking at you because it's full of eyeballs. As a result, they end up mouthing the more horrible bits of dialogue rather gingerly, with politely-concealed distaste. It's a pity, because the show actually has a very good cast (apart from some obviously ham guest stars), and they deserve to be given something better to say. It's also the basis of the Wesley Crusher problem - it's nothing to do with the unfortunate actor, the character's just really badly written, poor lad. So now I have a new insomnia cure: where before I used to lie awake at 3am whiling away the hours by designing lesson plans for Hogwarts Divination classes (I don't believe in divination, but anyone with half a brain for symbol analysis could do a better job than Sibyl), now I lie awake re-writing the most recently-watched STNG script to make the character and plot motivations actually, you know, make sense. It's really not that difficult.
I'm also interested in how far my sense of "OMG this is badly written!" is about writers who haven't yet hit their stride, and how much of it is simply about dated values for dialogue and acting. Even in the good episodes the beats seem slow to me, and the interchanges frequently stilted: is the same true of most TV from that time? As someone who's come to TV anachonistically, late and on DVD rather than in any contemporary sense, I really don't have the wherewithal for comparison. I darkly suspect, though, that Joss Whedon may have spoiled me.
On a completely unrelated note, this morning I stumbled across the deliriously happy concept of the Desert Bus video game, which made me giggle like a twit for several minutes. I am apparently a huge fan of ideas taken to their logical conclusion and beyond until surreality sets in.
no subject
Date: Sunday, 27 June 2010 06:39 pm (UTC)ITYM "semiotics". Don't turn into Dan Brown on us.
no subject
Date: Sunday, 27 June 2010 08:16 pm (UTC)Also, you just accused me of Dan Brown. Pistols at dawn, sirrah!
no subject
Date: Sunday, 27 June 2010 09:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Monday, 28 June 2010 06:22 am (UTC)Contexually, I analyse symbols a lot because my work is in fairy tale and fantasy and mythology and what have you. I therefore feel that I am infinitely better qualified to teach Divination than Sibyl Trelawney.
no subject
Date: Sunday, 27 June 2010 06:40 pm (UTC)I love Deep Space Nine deeply and profoundly, but I found the first few seasons a bit stilted and cheesetastic. It gets much, much better later, and so does TNG.
I think both writers and actors need to warm up to realistic and natural-sounding dialogue. Season 1 of TNG is not only the first season of a series; it was the first season of a franchise reboot. I think it took them a while to figure out the show's strengths and weaknesses. When the writers stop messing around with wacky aliens-of-the-week and let their awesome stage actors do their thing, that's when the show is at its best. I've always been impressed by the professionalism of the Star Trek actors, and their ability to play the setting completely straight (sometimes in spite of a terrible script).
no subject
Date: Sunday, 27 June 2010 08:41 pm (UTC)I may need a Star Trek icon, I still have six seasons to go...
no subject
Date: Sunday, 27 June 2010 06:43 pm (UTC)Very strongly recommended. Also - only 6 parts.
I really hope there's a Season2.
no subject
Date: Monday, 28 June 2010 02:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: Tuesday, 29 June 2010 10:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Tuesday, 29 June 2010 10:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 27 June 2010 07:06 pm (UTC)You may be right about the writing of the time. I fell hard for B5 because it felt so tight, and as though each episode moved everything along, where TNG was routinely less tightly plotted, and had less forward drive over the length of a season. Of course, it took B5 a season to get rolling as well.