Star Trek

Quote (grigori @ May 20 2010, 6:31 pm)

And are you trained in critical literary theory as is grigori? you echo me.

I do believe I could find some pretty fine enjoyment in such a field, especially if you are typical of the breed because even when I sometimes find myself with a differing p.o.v. than yours on something I seem to remember always enjoying your expression of what and why you have that p.o.v.

Quote (grigori @ May 20 2010, 6:31 pm)

:I'm not the only "expert" who maintains that if your knee-jerk reaction is that you don't like a work of art, then you really don't know enough about it. Your world of reference is too small! You need to give writers the benefit of the doubt at least long enough to see if THEY achieved what THEY set out to do, and not be all clouded by your narrow expectations of the subject.

Indeed yes. And, if I may, I would like to even broaden that to the 'creator(s)' of a show who have to rely on writers, producers, actors, networks, directors, and so on, to try and get their baby to fly.

I will take it further to the actors who have to rely on directors, producers, writers, networks, and so on, to give them material they can fly with.

Producers have to live under similar conditions. Their 'productions' rarely develop just as they had intended or were hoping for. Producers are tossed about on a sea of actors, writers, networks, budget, etc.

And on and on in every-single-step-of-a-show from conception thru completion.

I am frequently astounded to hear things like... this actor is crap, or that producer is nuts, or this episode is bad, that movie was ruined. Like the actor is the only one involved in his or her performance bottom line. Like the producer(s) has total control over writers, actors, directors, budget, bad days, networks, world events. Like the show doesn't have mutiple layers and directions from which it can be discovered rather than the illogically simplistic good/bad.

And here's my personal favorite... "The character should do [this or that]." Like an imaginary character:
1. whose story and dialogue comes from writers (and others on occassion)
2. who have good weeks and sometimes have bad weeks
3. and also have creators, producers, directors, and networks influencing their writing
4. and the imaginary character is depicted by actors
5. who are told what to say and do
6. and sometimes told "how" to say and do
and so forth
7. and myriad other things that can effect anything or everything
.... can possibly be thought of or commented on as being aware enough to be control of anything.

I can never (never never never never never) view a character or a show without seeing all the parts that make it. I see the writer, the actor, the producer, the director, the network, the actor's personal life, the producer's frame of mind, the network's accountant, and so on. To do less is simplistic beyond all logic to me. Beyond -yond-yond-yond all -all-all-all logic -ogic-ogic-ogic. *echo effect referencingGalaxy Quest*

Right.... I'm now leaving the world of comment behind and entering the relm of rant again. Must... Stop... Self... (Do critical literary theorists do this?)

Quote (grigori @ May 20 2010, 6:31 pm)

:Once then informed, once you get not only the message but why they chose to convey it the way they did, and the possible advantages of that choice for the audience, THEN you can decide if the piece of art "doesn't work".

I am in complete agreement.

Quote (grigori @ May 20 2010, 6:31 pm)

....distinguishing a writer's intent from an actor's gifts or limitations, and put the whole thing into a larger context--seeing the good things in episodes that those who dismissed them never even got NEAR seeing.

Complete agreement here too.

Quote (tishkajaku @ May 20 2010, 10:09 pm)

TYGR, you are great at the summaries....I agree with Yanks.

Just saw this. Thanks, tishkajaku. Bet you're currently rethinking the nice comment you made after this last post of mine.

Quote (ThankYouGeneR @ May 25 2010, 1:16 am)

Like the show doesn't have mutiple layers and directions from which it can be discovered rather than the illogically simplistic good/bad.

I dunno GeneR, some people just don't see the layers. (Your world of reference is too small.) Their world of reference has never evolved; some people even think that for some reason they are expected to CLING to a single, original viewpoint...as if art ever even "works" like that, but in the real world, PEOPLE work like that.

Anyhow, well-noted.

Quote (grigori @ May 25 2010, 7:27 pm)

I dunno GeneR, some people just don't see the layers. (Your world of reference is too small.)

Mine?

Quote (grigori @ May 25 2010, 7:27 pm)

Unfortunately, critical theorists aren't even allowed to use the quality assessments "good" or "bad", merely discuss a work of art in its cultural context.

Hrmph. Well, if I go to all the trouble of pulling in all that info to get as much from which to make a more than simplistic assessment, I'm definitely reserving the right to say if it worked or didn't work for me.

Quote (grigori @ May 25 2010, 7:27 pm)

And FORGET any moral discussions of the work's message...

Right. That's it then. I see I will definitely never make it in the critical theorist business. I leave it in your capable hands.

Quote (grigori @ May 25 2010, 7:27 pm)

I like a forum like this where we CAN "like" something, but where most of the people are thoughtful enough to dissect why--and wonderfully, notice details I missed and expound upon them!

That's what I'm TALKing about. Right there! That's the good stuff. To exist without such exchange would surely leave me the lesser for it.

Quote (Yanks @ May 19 2010, 8:04 pm)

Quote (TaoTrek @ May 19 2010, 7:28 pm) BTW, did anyone else think that "scorpion" thing looked ALOT like a Ceti eel!? I don't know, looks pretty scary to me...

You know what that bug reminds me of...???
Have you seen new movie Enterprise with Kirk.
When Romulans captured captain Pike they put similar bug in his mouth, it looked like the one in picture... SCARY looking creature I would shoot at that bug also.

Quote (ThankYouGeneR @ May 26 2010, 2:12 am)

Quote (grigori @ May 25 2010, 7:27 pm) I dunno GeneR, some people just don't see the layers. (Your world of reference is too small.) Mine?

No, definitely not YOURS, TYGR, I worded that poorly--I was just quoting mySELF from the earlier post! Sorry! I see that it looks like I was aiming it at you.

Quote (ThankYouGeneR @ May 26 2010, 2:12 am)

Quote (grigori @ May 25 2010, 7:27 pm) And FORGET any moral discussions of the work's message... Right. That's it then. I see I will definitely never make it in the critical theorist business. I leave it in your capable hands.

It IS very difficult to grow for years as a person, to have definite moral opinions and the desire to explore ethical questions, but be forbidden from doing it in one's work.

I suppose one should go into theology, then. But THEN you never primarily discuss actual literature and film and TV and theatre, per se!

THIS becomes the only place for such a Forum or discussion. This, and beers with your buds over pizza. But I don't have an over-abundance of buds who will take the discussion as seriously as my buddies here on the ENT Forum!

Quote (Yanks @ May 26 2010, 1:03 pm)

Quote (Tucker01 @ May 26 2010, 8:02 am) Quote (Yanks @ May 19 2010, 8:04 pm) Quote (TaoTrek @ May 19 2010, 7:28 pm) BTW, did anyone else think that "scorpion" thing looked ALOT like a Ceti eel!? I don't know, looks pretty scary to me... You know what that bug reminds me of...??? Have you seen new movie Enterprise with Kirk. When Romulans captured captain Pike they put similar bug in his mouth, it looked like the one in picture... SCARY looking creature I would shoot at that bug also. I wonder if it was a re-used prop Star Trek had done that allot in the past...

Could be...