- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/27/14 at 1:28 pm to BlacknGold
Wasn't Fringe basically just...the X Files redone?
Posted on 1/27/14 at 1:30 pm to White Shadeaux
quote:
Wasn't Fringe basically just...the X Files redone?
And X-Files is just Kolchak?
Don't let some slight relations to X-Files deter you.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 1:31 pm to Freauxzen
His example boils down to lack of character development. He could have just said that without a convoluted explanation. I don't see how is applies to LOST. I thought the character development in LOST was excellent overall for the main characters.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 1:33 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
And X-Files is just Kolchak?
Don't let some slight relations to X-Files deter you.
I loved Kolchak.
Never saw the X Files or Fringe.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 1:47 pm to White Shadeaux
quote:
Never saw the X Files or Fringe.
Both are excellent, especially if you like that style of science fiction/horror/etc.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 1:53 pm to White Shadeaux
quote:
Never saw the X Files or Fringe.
I never saw XF. But I'd easily recommend Fringe. Not only is it great, but 5 seasons/100 episodes is WAY easier to handle than 9/202.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:02 pm to Freauxzen
This article would have been penetrating if Abrams hadn't already laid out his entire approach to media creation in his TED Talk "The Mystery Box".
It always seemed to me like for Abrams, a plot device itself is a character and the characters are devices with their sole narrative functions being to "undress" The Box and show us the core of its contents.
It could be seen as a near-exact reverse of what you might call more standard storytelling fare, where the contents of the plot device box are only important to the extent that they inform something about the walking and talking characters' behavior.
I don't know if it's fair to say that Abrams isn't interested in character study, so much as his own experiences with media dictate that when there is a mystery, the mystery should be front and center in the narrative rather than an excuse for some rag-tag group to go on an adventure and learn about itself.
The latter is still possible, but I don't think it's instrumental in the kind of movie or show he wants to make. The author of the article wants to call Abrams's style mechanical by stripping it of its pathetic validity (pathetic referring to pathos), and I think that's fine. But I also think for Abrams it is a deliberate task rather than a case of "Me no understand how write humans".
It always seemed to me like for Abrams, a plot device itself is a character and the characters are devices with their sole narrative functions being to "undress" The Box and show us the core of its contents.
It could be seen as a near-exact reverse of what you might call more standard storytelling fare, where the contents of the plot device box are only important to the extent that they inform something about the walking and talking characters' behavior.
I don't know if it's fair to say that Abrams isn't interested in character study, so much as his own experiences with media dictate that when there is a mystery, the mystery should be front and center in the narrative rather than an excuse for some rag-tag group to go on an adventure and learn about itself.
The latter is still possible, but I don't think it's instrumental in the kind of movie or show he wants to make. The author of the article wants to call Abrams's style mechanical by stripping it of its pathetic validity (pathetic referring to pathos), and I think that's fine. But I also think for Abrams it is a deliberate task rather than a case of "Me no understand how write humans".
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:06 pm to Muppet
quote:
Muppet
I think I agree with almost all of that. Especially these:
quote:
It always seemed to me like for Abrams, a plot device itself is a character and the characters are devices with their sole narrative functions being to "undress" The Box and show us the core of its contents.
quote:
But I also think for Abrams it is a deliberate task rather than a case of "Me no understand how write humans".
Do you have a link to this:
quote:
his TED Talk "The Mystery Box".
?
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:08 pm to CocomoLSU
Since you asked. Nobody should have TED thrust upon them unwillingly.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:19 pm to Muppet
You mean you don't want to talk about ALL CAPS, or Fringe, or other non-relevant things!??
Eh, he mentions it briefly.
Which isn't really a story and isn't really revolutionary. We as people don't connect to plot points, we shouldn't.
Just because something is "cool," doesn't mean it's worthwhile. If being cool is all that matters then Michael Bay= J.J. Abrams and we should all worry for Star Wars.
But then the characters have no agency.
But I think the assumption is that if the mystery is front and center, then the characters must suffer. Look at something like Double Indemnity. The mystery is front in center, but the characters still have agency.
Probably a fair assessment of both. I think Abrams can write good characters (or create them, as you will), he's done it before. And sometimes his characters can move beyond the mystery focus (see: Desmond/Sawyer, Jack Bristow, Sloan (>Linus), Walter Bishop, Peter Bishop).
That's why I dislike Lost as much as I like it. I think it's a good show that gets in the way of itself, because of the convoluted plot.
I don't think Hulk's argument is that "JJ ABRAMS< BAD CHARACTERS BAD AT WRITING." I think it's more "ABRAMS TALENTED. NEED FOCUS MORE ON CHARACTERS WITH AGENCY, NARRATIVE CLEANLINESS."
quote:
This article would have been penetrating if Abrams hadn't already laid out his entire approach to media creation in his TED Talk "The Mystery Box".
Eh, he mentions it briefly.
quote:
It always seemed to me like for Abrams, a plot device itself is a character and the characters are devices with their sole narrative functions being to "undress" The Box and show us the core of its contents.
Which isn't really a story and isn't really revolutionary. We as people don't connect to plot points, we shouldn't.
Just because something is "cool," doesn't mean it's worthwhile. If being cool is all that matters then Michael Bay= J.J. Abrams and we should all worry for Star Wars.
quote:
It could be seen as a near-exact reverse of what you might call more standard storytelling fare, where the contents of the plot device box are only important to the extent that they inform something about the walking and talking characters' behavior.
But then the characters have no agency.
quote:
I don't know if it's fair to say that Abrams isn't interested in character study, so much as his own experiences with media dictate that when there is a mystery, the mystery should be front and center in the narrative rather than an excuse for some rag-tag group to go on an adventure and learn about itself.
quote:
I don't know if it's fair to say that Abrams isn't interested in character study, so much as his own experiences with media dictate that when there is a mystery, the mystery should be front and center in the narrative rather than an excuse for some rag-tag group to go on an adventure and learn about itself.
But I think the assumption is that if the mystery is front and center, then the characters must suffer. Look at something like Double Indemnity. The mystery is front in center, but the characters still have agency.
quote:
The latter is still possible, but I don't think it's instrumental in the kind of movie or show he wants to make. The author of the article wants to call Abrams's style mechanical by stripping it of its pathetic validity (pathetic referring to pathos), and I think that's fine. But I also think for Abrams it is a deliberate task rather than a case of "Me no understand how write humans".
Probably a fair assessment of both. I think Abrams can write good characters (or create them, as you will), he's done it before. And sometimes his characters can move beyond the mystery focus (see: Desmond/Sawyer, Jack Bristow, Sloan (>Linus), Walter Bishop, Peter Bishop).
That's why I dislike Lost as much as I like it. I think it's a good show that gets in the way of itself, because of the convoluted plot.
I don't think Hulk's argument is that "JJ ABRAMS< BAD CHARACTERS BAD AT WRITING." I think it's more "ABRAMS TALENTED. NEED FOCUS MORE ON CHARACTERS WITH AGENCY, NARRATIVE CLEANLINESS."
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:32 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
You mean you don't want to talk about ALL CAPS, or Fringe, or other non-relevant things!??
I don't post often, but when I do, I further the god damned discussion! I can't help but think that Film Critic Hulk would have been more interesting as a voice acted series, though, to get back to the dominant thread topic. These reviews should be read aloud by the guy who voiced Fawkes in Fallout 3.
quote:
Which isn't really a story and isn't really revolutionary. We as people don't connect to plot points, we shouldn't.
Just because something is "cool," doesn't mean it's worthwhile. If being cool is all that matters then Michael Bay= J.J. Abrams and we should all worry for Star Wars.
We can just stop right there, because I agree with all of the criticisms the article offers about Abrams. I was just arguing with you in hopes that you'll eventually play a game with me again.
quote:
That's why I dislike Lost as much as I like it. I think it's a good show that gets in the way of itself, because of the convoluted plot.
When the essence of your show's conclusion is "Didn't matter, went to heaven" in response to all of the oddly specific things that happened to the characters on the island, I agree that the convolution severely hampered it as a whole.
If fans want to argue that much of the island lore development was irrelevant to the bigger picture, then most of the show is nothing but a series of Chekhov's guns.
This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 1/27/14 at 2:43 pm to Freauxzen
I think this guy is trying way too hard to make some kind of grand statement about Abrams and television.
I see what he's trying to say (and I somewhat agree), but he could have said it in a much less convoluted way and without the ridiculous CAPS. In fact, I think his method of arguing is somewhat ironic because it's "plot" mirrors the structure of Lost. Not sure if that was intentional or not.
Anyway, yes Lost had some serious weaknesses, but it also did a lot of things great. And it was a successful drama on network TV which is impressive in its own.
I see what he's trying to say (and I somewhat agree), but he could have said it in a much less convoluted way and without the ridiculous CAPS. In fact, I think his method of arguing is somewhat ironic because it's "plot" mirrors the structure of Lost. Not sure if that was intentional or not.
Anyway, yes Lost had some serious weaknesses, but it also did a lot of things great. And it was a successful drama on network TV which is impressive in its own.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 3:01 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
You mean you don't want to talk about ALL CAPS, or Fringe, or other non-relevant things!??
: /
Posted on 1/27/14 at 3:59 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
: /
Just seemed like a solid article with a lot of "eh won't read, caps lock."
Posted on 1/27/14 at 4:01 pm to Muppet
quote:
I don't post often, but when I do, I further the god damned discussion! I can't help but think that Film Critic Hulk would have been more interesting as a voice acted series, though, to get back to the dominant thread topic. These reviews should be read aloud by the guy who voiced Fawkes in Fallout 3.
quote:
We can just stop right there, because I agree with all of the criticisms the article offers about Abrams. I was just arguing with you in hopes that you'll eventually play a game with me again.
I've been backing away from the computer mostly. GW2 was like a kick in the guts. I play Smite....sometimes. And TF2. Smite is like a better LoL. I still like League, but eh, too serious.
We can take this one to the game board, or email me.
More tangents!
quote:
When the essence of your show's conclusion is "Didn't matter, went to heaven" in response to all of the oddly specific things that happened to the characters on the island, I agree that the convolution severely hampered it as a whole.
If fans want to argue that much of the island lore development was irrelevant to the bigger picture, then most of the show is nothing but a series of Chekhov's guns.
Bingo.
Posted on 1/27/14 at 4:02 pm to DallasTiger11
quote:
I think this guy is trying way too hard to make some kind of grand statement about Abrams and television.
I see what he's trying to say (and I somewhat agree), but he could have said it in a much less convoluted way and without the ridiculous CAPS. In fact, I think his method of arguing is somewhat ironic because it's "plot" mirrors the structure of Lost. Not sure if that was intentional or not.
I can't but help read it with a voice in my head, maybe that works?
Posted on 1/27/14 at 4:04 pm to CocomoLSU
season one was monster of the week, x files style. season 2 and beyond, they grew into their own show and style. I was taken aback by the change in format for season 5, but once I got used to it, I loved it as well
Posted on 1/27/14 at 5:50 pm to Freauxzen
I get the critique but I think you missed the boat on LOST. Hulk would agree
LINK
That is a long, long read on the finale and Hulks problems with it. Despite those problems, Hulk is still a huge fan
quote:
LOST BOTH ATTEMPTED AND SUCCEEDED IN DOING THINGS MOST OTHER SHOWS NO EVEN TRY: IT HAD RICH, TEXTURED CHARACTERS
quote:
OBJECTIVELY-SPEAKINGLOST MUST REPRESENT THE PINNACLE OF TELEVISION. HECK, IT THE BEST OF WHATENTERTAINMENT CAN OFFER.
quote:
THE ANSWER TO ANY PARTICULAR ISLAND MYSTERY OFTEN GAVE AT LEAST THREE ANSWERS, ONE CHARACTER/STORY BASED, ONE SCIENTIFIC/LOGIC BASED, AND ONE THEMATIC/RELIGIOUS/MYTH BASED (YOU MAY NOT REMEMBER THIS BEING CASE, BUT TRUST HULK. IT TRUE. THOUGH MOST OF IT IN THE PRODUCTION DESIGN).
LINK
That is a long, long read on the finale and Hulks problems with it. Despite those problems, Hulk is still a huge fan
Posted on 1/27/14 at 6:00 pm to corndeaux
quote:
corndeaux
Good find. From that it seems he either contradicts himself or came to a different conclusion later.
BUt...
quote:
but I think you missed the boat on LOST. Hulk would agree
I really didn't, you must not have read the thread:
quote:
Which is all I argue about Lost. I often say the caveat, "I love Lost, I think it's a fun show, but let's be honest about how GOOD it actually is."
quote:
That is a long, long read on the finale and Hulks problems with it. Despite those problems, Hulk is still a huge fan
And so am I. It's just ok to put it into the proper light, which usually gets a lot of disagreement.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News