Firefly Contributing To The End Of Buffy?

POSTED BY: NewsAdmin
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2002 21:26
VIEWED: 10552
PAGE 4 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4

MOJOECA

Monday, June 3, 2002 3:53 AM

I do hope that these guys stay grunts. Farscape started out like that, then the whole wormhole business got hot and heavy -- which I do love. But Capt Kirk saving the entire universe every movie got tiresome...

When I first heard about Firefly, it kinda sounded like A-Team in space.

--- Joe

MOJOECA

Monday, June 3, 2002 4:14 AM

Quote:
mean I understand the need for everything to hang together well but it's not so important to me as good characters and interesting stories.

I second that. Nitpicking is just so...blah.

Given a choice between plotholes and bullsh*t technobabble like we hear on Star Trek (no offense to ST fans), I go for the plot holes if it means more time for charactes, stories.

--- Joe

ZICSOFT

Monday, June 3, 2002 3:52 PM

Here's an example of how I see the whole issue of details-versus-story. If you haven't seen 24 yet, well too bad. I refuse to use the spoiler tag for this.

Everybody but me seems to think that 24 is great, innovative TV. For the first few episodes I did too. Then they got to part where they explained why -- and I lost interest.

If you're going to steal somebody's press credentials, do you really need to blow up a plane to do it? If you're going to kidnap a secret agent's family, do you really need an elaborate scheme involving flaky teenage thugs and assasins posing as accountants?

What they did was concoct a plot that didn't make any sense. But we're supposed to overlook the holes because it's dramatic. Well, some of us can't.

Now with SF that's even more of a problem, because everything is invented. Naturally you expect the audience to suspend disbelief -- but you can only that that so far. It's not fair to invent a whole world, suck people into it and then discard details whenever they're inconvenient.

SHUGGIE

Monday, June 3, 2002 9:13 PM

Clearly not all plot holes are created equal.

As you point out it's all about suspension of disbelief. How much can you stretch things before the audience simply refuses to believe.

It depends on where the hole is. Is it slap in the middle of where your story lives or is it off to the side somewhere?

It depends on how big it is.

It depends on who your audience are. Astrophysicists probably have a harder time suspending disbelief in Star Trek than the average fan.

It also depends what it buys you. Sometimes a slight inconsistency will allow a great plot twist or story idea.

Shug

Her lips were saying 'No' but then I looked into her eyes
... and her eyes were saying 'read my lips'
- Niles Crane

SHAMUS

Monday, June 3, 2002 9:26 PM

Ok, I'm finally getting your point, Zicsoft. SF has to deal with internal consistency issues that don't come up -- as much -- in other fiction.

Whedon/Mutant Enemy have been pretty good about that sort of thing, I think. Although they for the most part threw out the existing vampire mythos "rules", the ones they invented have been honored in the plot.

Well, mostly. I'm still not sure why the Master didn't explode into dust when he took a timber through the chest. Didn't make me tune out, though.

It seems to me that the 24 example highlights a different issue, one of abandoning the notion that everyone -- evil or otherwise -- will take the least action to accomplish their aim. No one, from your example, is going to blowup an airplane they themselves are flying on, parachute into the desert at night, and hook up with a huge downside team, just to get an ID card for your plastic-surgery remade assasin.

Bonk the guy on the head, take the card, dump the body.

Better yet. Just stand off at a good distance and shoot the target. Skip the plastic surgery.

To avoid this kind of over-plotting (not that this has ever been a problem for Joss&Co) it will help to keep the FF folks "grunts" (as Joe puts it ).

Nothings exceeds like excess.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4