ashylogic

For me, that is. These things are extremely subjective.

Villains usually come with an inbuilt expiration date when we're talking about tv shows. Especially if their objective is to destroy the hero; they can try only so often before losing all credibility as a genuine threat. Also, if you compensate by letting them destroy everyone else but the hero, the hero starts to look bad and incompetent for not being able to contain them. So, given you don't want to kill your villain off after one story, what do you do? Here are some solutions tv shows of ages past came up with that worked for me. They all could be summed up with: "Change the agenda from "destroy the hero" or don't give the villain that agenda to begin with, but do give him an agenda which puts him/her at odds with the hero".

( Spoilers for Farscape and Babylon 5 in ensuing ramblings )

I've been wrestling this past week with a decision that wasn't easy for me to make: breaking up with a show that is still ongoing. But I've always believed that once the joy and/or fascination you take from something you're fannish about doesn't outweigh the elements that cause you anger or boredom anymore, it's time to move on, rather than being bitter week after week. The first time this happened to me was with Earth: Final Conflict. It would have happened with Carnivale had Carnivale not been cancelled after the second season anyway, and it probably would have happened with Alias if there had been a sixth season, given events in the fifth (i.e. I would not have continued watching, but then again, the events in the fifth I'm referring to would not have happened had it not been the last season; at any rate, the fifth season had elements I enjoyed but I stand by my claim the fourth season would have been the perfect final season). What all of this taught me is that it's possible to separate and still remain fond of the show(s) in question. The first season of Carnivale was an awesome achievement. I hadn't watched Earth: Final Conflict for eons, but the other week I came across a favourite first season episode which was shown on tv and thought, yes, I remember why I liked that show so much back then. And I've never stopped loving Alias, fifth season grudges notwithstanding, and am delighted when finding new fanfiction such as this one.

Now it's Heroes turn. It's not that the third season doesn't offer stories I like; I love Claire's development in particular. But what I dislike is, sadly, a central storyline ( which necessitates a spoiler cut ). Moreover, let me play devil's advocate about the recent Tim Kring interview which caused much fannish ire: I think he's right as far as he himself is concerned. Not everyone can do serialized tv, plot out arcs beyond one season, and it probably would have been better if he had stuck to his original concept of rotating ensembles for each season. It's always better if you stick to what you're good at and are fond of, and if you love origin stories but aren't that interested in long-term developments, well, then you should stick to origin stories. I'm very much reminded of Chris Carter. The X-Files happened just when tv shows with longer arcs started to take off and capture the viewers' imagination, with Babylon 5 leading the way. This caused Carter to add a myth arc to his monster of the week show, and to be frank, it sucked. Not every episode of the myth arc - I'm still fond of the s2 finale and the s3 opener - but it quickly became a convoluted mess which stopped making any sense at all because a) it clearly hadn't been thought out in advance, and b) Carter wasn't good at improvising, either. (Which by contrast JMS was in Babylon 5; some of B5's most memorable developments were the result of having to improvise, as when the network demanded a change of leading man after the first season, but he pulled it off, and the result still feels like long term planning if you watch it in execution.) The X-Files would have been better if they had remained a monster of the week show, or if Carter had handed the show over to someone who could actually plot and/or improvise arcs. Tim Kring appears to have the same problem Carter did, and so unless there is a change of show runner, I don't see how a similar result can be avoided.

What all of this doesn't mean: wailing, ire and expressions of eternal hate on my part, or vows never to return to the Heroesverse again. (Or, for that matter, never to watch something created by Tim Kring again. Trust me, I was absolutely furious with Daniel Knauf about season 2 of Carnivale, but what did I do two days ago? I bought the trade collection which has just been published in German that collects the entire Iron Man: Director of SHIELD run he wrote with his son. Because I enjoyed reading it. I suppose feuds with writers just aren't for me.) I've written
about 30 stories set in the universe of Heroes; I am profoundly grateful to have watched, to have fallen in love with the characters which inspired these stories. And who knows, maybe in a year or two I'll hear that my big s3 problem has been solved in a satisfactorly manner, or that amazing things happened in subsequent episodes, and I'll buy the dvds and will return to watching. But till such a thing happens, I'm saying a fond goodbye, or rather, Auf Wiedersehen, as the farewell in my native language implies the possibility of a reunion, meaning, literally, "till we meet again".

Right. Eventful day, first snow (alas, all gone) and ugh, my sleep schedule over the weekends is impossible. Buuut! ^_^

After someone pointed me straight to the direction of a reasonably priced seven seasons set, I caved and bought it, still feeling in an optimistic political vein. (And btw, Hillary for Secretary of State? Makes me happy. Also, I now have region 2 seasons 1 and 2 of the West Wing doubled, and would be happy to trade.) Having just finished them, I'll give it a break of a week or two before continuing with the post-Sorkin era.

Now, on to detailed viewing impressions.

( You're cooler if you don't tell everyone you're cool )

I've been elected to speak for all the kids and grandchildren here of people that James targeted. Well, perhaps I elected myself. Anyway. A couple of things that we all agree on:

1. Do not make deals with the partners to save us.

2. Do not make deals with Basil and co to save us.

3. Do not make deals with Sophia, Angelus ect. to save us.


A couple of personal shout outs:

Dad, you have a big freaking mouth. Thanks a lot.

Mom, don't you dare let James use my headaches to manipulate you.

Dad and Dad? Don't you dare let James do that either.

Teenage mom? Please don't let anyone upset you more than you're already upset.

Hugs and kisses,

Ava

C'mere Buffy.

Yay word count update. Yay finally getting around emo muse to write.

I should be making another update later today, depending on when I get back home from today's activities.

... and when I get into the roll, it's still a pleasure to write this muse. *crosses fingers* 15K more words. Should be possible.

Regarding the impending Star Trek movie: I've got people on my flist who loved the trailer and people who were horrified. Me, I'm somewhat amused by the concept of troubled teen Kirk, but willing to wait for the execution to see whether or not this is the most groanworthy retcon in ST since Spock aquired a half brother and his father Sarek a previous marriage (with "a Vulcan princess", no less, never mind the Vulcans don't do royalty) in ST V. However, what genuinenly ticks me off are the following quotes in the Empire article I've read on the train:

"How do you watch Galaxy Quest and then go make a Star Trek movie?" - Way to fail realizing the point of Galaxy Quest, JJ and reporter James Dyer.

"Mention Star Trek to the avarage man on the street, and their immediate thoughts will likely stray to overweight fanboys waring prosthetic foreheads and taking evening classes in conversational Klingon." Not if that man is Patrick Stewart, whose classy smackdown of this type of journalistic cheapness can't be bettered (on page 2 of the article I linked).

"Star Wars was everything to me when I was a kid. It was this mind-expanding, visually stunning emotional ride. Like with Star Trek, though, I think the original films are what Star Wars really is. With the prequels, the endless books and now the tv series, it's diluted what Star Wars means in much the same way as what's happened to Star Trel. (...) Star Wars was always full of action. If I had one criticism of the original Star Trek, it's that the show was often a lot of discussion about things that were happening and not a lot of action depicting it. That needed to change." - Leaving aside my different opinion about the SW prequels for the moment: what made Star Trek what it was, in various incarnations, was that no, it wasn't like Star Wars. That "seeking out new life and new civilisations" bit in the freaking opening narration of both TOS and TNG? Was actually a big part of the appeal. And when the format changed, in DS9, which took place on a space station instead of a ship, the writing staff used this to explore different alien societies in ways the shows set on space ships couldn't because they were in a different place each week, but again, those Bajorans, Cardassians, Ferengi were quintessential to the appeal. And yes, there was a lot of talk. That would why moments like Spock, in The Naked Time, talking about his human mother, or Picard in Measure of a Man (aka the one about whether Data is a toaster or a sentient being) pointing out that they were talking about slavery, or Garak telling Sisko the cost of his alliance ("four lives, and the self respect of a Starfleet officer") are the ones that are engraved in the fannish mind. If you take that away from Star Trek, it becomes a generic space opera. You want to talk about "diluted"? That's diluted. Not the post-TOS shows. I have my own preferences there, but each of them tried to capture this about ST - new life, moral dilemmas, and absolutely, talk.

And now excuse me. I'm going to get my Galaxy Quest dvd out and will watch this film again. Which is, among other things, an absolute love declaration to those uncool, weird fans whom the "avarage man on the street" so looks down on. And a great sci fi adventure, mixing character exploration, humour and action. Never once believing its audience to be dumb. Which, you know, is what "Star Trek really is".

SPOILERS behind the cut.( Hey now, all you sinners || Put your lights on, put your lights on. )

Guess I'm not the only one in the family with a crush on an angel, huh?

Dad, so help me, if you mention a Ken doll, I will thump you!

:(


( Dude, seriously )

I miss my son and my girlfriend. Noodle, bring them back now, thanks.

Dean :(

This. Fucking. Sucks.

Aws, you poor babies. C'mere Deans. I'll make it better.

The difficulty is that we create protagonists we love. And we love them like our children. We want to protect them from harm, keep them safe, make sure they won't get hurt, or not so bad. Maybe a skinned knee. Certainly not a car wreck. But the essence of fiction writing is creating a character you love and, frankly, torturing him. You are both sadist and savior. Find the thing he loves most and take it away from him. Find the thing he fears and shove him shoulder deep into it. Find the person who is absolutely worst for him and have him delivered into that character's hands. Having him make a choice which is absolutely wrong.

Yep, Hannah, and this is why we all hate you. Just saying.

I got a makeover.

Sup Sammy.

Colorado?

* I think I'm PMSing like whoa, plus tired. If in communication or RP I do something stupid? Feel free to smack me over it. I'm a big girl, I can take it

* Re-reading Jonathan Livingston Seagull made me recall why I loved it so much in the first place. And I cried. I seem to do way more often than usual, recently.

* Music share: ( Heaven )

And now, off to shower and work...