Rookie
07-13-2005, 09:29 PM
I know there is a land review thread, but this really isn't a review as much as a statement. Everyone was bitching about what they wanted to see in Land, What they would have done, and bashing the movie rather badly.
A little Python off the top to give you a bit of the idea of the tone I'm going for here. I'm also not going to use any of these damnable smileys well, because I'm not ten, and I just don't like them.
[spoilers for Doctor Who new series below, if you've lived in a cave recently but somehow have cable.]
Okay.
There are threads further down that talk in some Ve-r-r-r-y interesting terms about the powers that BBC having their hands caught in the cookie jar about a decision to announce that Chris Eccleson was moving on after the first Dr Who series. Apparently, they blabbed it. They weren't supposed to - that was their agreement, and they put the blame on him in the process.
Now I can add a peanut butter splash of speculation to this bread, but it's only that. Russel Davies worked with Chris before, on Second Coming. I think in light of these articles one has at least to consider the possiblity that Eccleston (or however you spell his name) signed on only for the one series, and always only for the one series. And that was known from fairly early on, and AGREED TO. I can see people making that deal to restart a franchise that wasn't a sure thing, and to take it in a bold direction. In which case, leaking his leaving to the tabs was pretty much screwing him proper. But that's all speculation.
What isn't speculation is this: as other people in that other thread (The Former Doctor Who) have pointed out, all hell has broken loose in fandom...sigh...again. Chris Eccleson should be getting his first shipment of boiled bunnies any time now.
And this behavior, sadly, *does* reinforce the image of a lot of Sci fi fans as ... looneys. And if I was a certain type of actor I might be... reluctant .. to take on that freight.
Especially since, in the end, it doesn't matter that the fans are almost always wrong.
(Oh Denis, oh snap, you're so evil, I need my smelling salts.)
But let's look at history, shall we? Not the rewritten, rose colored glass kind -- but the real history.
In the real Sci Fi history -- Blade Runner was a flop when it came out. People were violently opposed to Star Trek: The Next Generation. Complained voiciferously about how Patrick Stewart was terrible and no Kirk, how Data was warmed over Spock. The X-Files started out with horribly low ratings. People mocked Buffy the Vampire Slayer and said it would never work as a series; it looked cheap, Sarah Michelle Gellar was bad; the rest of the cast was weak. Babylon 5 was a cheap Star Trek knock off - and depending on who you talked to, either sucked because it was ripping off Star Trek, or DS9 sucked because it ripped off B5. (When in truth, they were both just sci fi shows, and at times, damn good ones. And in the end very different.) Taking this into the present, the BSG remake was going to suck, Edward James Olmos was going to be bad and deserved hate mail. So did Katee Sackhoff, and James Callis was no John Colicos as Baltar. Just for good measure? The Ring was going to suck and not be anywhere as good as Ringu....and on, and on, and on.
What all of these things have in common is that snap judgements that were made by overactive, hyper critical fans turned out to be...piffle. You're going to find very few people today who will admit that they hated Blade Runner when it came out. You'll find very few people who'll say that Patrick Stewart sucks in the Role of Picard. But that doesn't mean that that wasn't a major, major opinion block at the time.
I honestly think that fans of this genre are very quick to judge, and too quick, in fact, to pre-judge. And once they pre-judge, they're deathly slow to ever admit, "hey, you know what? I was wrong! That's actually pretty cool."
It's way easier to sniff at shows that you loved that got sh*t canned maybe before they should have. And rail against "stupid network people" who don't get it.
But on balance, what's to get, when so many self-proclaimed "fans" don't get it themselves? Far from the comforts of history and feeling, like Religious Republicans in the US who manage to control the whole government and still think they're under a state of siege, I think a lot of fans would do well to look at your own series of reactions, pre-reactions, and hasty judgements and ask, if in fact, your line of thinking is the best thing for the genre as a whole. Is it going to get you more shows you like? If you insist on eating your young before they're birthed, then how do really, honestly expect to keep creative, sensitive people putting out for you?
I would point to Katee Sackhoff. I think a plurality of reasonable people think that she's doing a pretty good job, on balance, in the new BSG. But even when you read her statements in the press acknowledging that fans are starting to come around, there's still a lot of scar and hurt there from getting a rough ride before you had any right to judge her for anything.
Years from now, she may have done eight seasons as Starbuck. And it may be a very successful rich experience for her -- but there will always be that part of her that will remember that she was treated cruelly before she ever had a chance to prove herself.
And it's fans that did that. Fans of a genre that like to think that somehow they're unappreciated or discounted.
Now Eccleson's burned in effigy and maybe it wasn't even the poor bloke's fault.
Something to think about, if you have the guts to actually give it a good mulling over.
But don't feel *too* bad (like that's even possible)
Remember that even Anne Rice, bigshot author, had to eat crow after Interview With The Vampire -- going on record in an ugly and public way slamming Cruise for playing Lestat before he played the role, and then voiceferously recanting after she saw his performance.
The difference is: she did it. She admitted it.
But maybe if some weren't quite so ... ugly .. in their criticism at the sight unseen stage, there wouldn't be so much ..."Comic Book Guy Worthy" lunacy to dial yourself back from.
After all -- yes, I hated Jar Jar too. But I also saw the 10 year olds who loved him.
Fan is one thing. Good. Fanatic, another. Bad.
DMc
Ron Moore, Exec Producer, Battlestar Galactica and Bonnie Hammer, President, Sci-Fi Channel (USA) interviewed on KCRW's "The Business" - April 12
First part of the interview revealed that SciFi's BSG by their standards consider the show a huge hit. 3 million neighborhood of viewers a week, and better, gold demographics for the station. Plus critical acclaim, and the fact that evidence shows a lot of those viewers are 'drama' fans and not necessarily Sci-Fi fans.
At the end of the interview talk turned to Fans and how much you should listen to them, or follow your own vision.
Ronald Moore:
The lesson you learn is that you can't pay too close attention to it. You listen to them, you interact with them, you try to see what the fans respond to, and what they like or don't like because it's sort of telltale sign in general terms what the broader audience likes and doesn't like, but you never give over the show to them. I mean in the runup to Battlestar Galactica the miniseries coming on the air, you know I spent some time online, communicated with some of the fans, read some of the postings and things but i never allowed any of that to really change what we were doing, if I didn't think it worked. I find it a mistake to try and turn it into a democracy.
Question: Do you have to listen more closely, Bonnie? If you get 500 letters does it mean more to the Sci-fi channel than if 500 people write into CBS or NBC about something?
Bonnie Hammer:
500 letters is a day's worth of sci fi fans being happy or sad about something. We get thousands upon thousands when our fans are dissatisfied. I think what happens in success is when smart producers can hear the concerns, acknowledge the concerns rather than ignore them, but then be smart enough in how they translate whatever the franchise is, whether they make it campier or straighter, more intellectual --whatever -- but they don't either mock what came before, but can enhance what came before. And that's why I think Battlestar Galactica worked.
Question: What's the takeaway? What have you learned?
Ronald Moore:
That risk pays off. there was a lot of naysaying from sort of the some elements of the fan community, and there were doubts along the way, it was an expensive show and there were a lot of risks. But all the risks paid off
Alot of people are actully saying now how much more they Liked Dawn 04 then land, when everyone Stated how much they absoultly hated running zombies and the acting and this and that.
But over time, its starting to change.
Basicly, If it was up to the fans, we would have had Bub in a mall, with fran and rodger and flyboy helping Ben.
It's good to be a Fan
But not a Fanatic
A little Python off the top to give you a bit of the idea of the tone I'm going for here. I'm also not going to use any of these damnable smileys well, because I'm not ten, and I just don't like them.
[spoilers for Doctor Who new series below, if you've lived in a cave recently but somehow have cable.]
Okay.
There are threads further down that talk in some Ve-r-r-r-y interesting terms about the powers that BBC having their hands caught in the cookie jar about a decision to announce that Chris Eccleson was moving on after the first Dr Who series. Apparently, they blabbed it. They weren't supposed to - that was their agreement, and they put the blame on him in the process.
Now I can add a peanut butter splash of speculation to this bread, but it's only that. Russel Davies worked with Chris before, on Second Coming. I think in light of these articles one has at least to consider the possiblity that Eccleston (or however you spell his name) signed on only for the one series, and always only for the one series. And that was known from fairly early on, and AGREED TO. I can see people making that deal to restart a franchise that wasn't a sure thing, and to take it in a bold direction. In which case, leaking his leaving to the tabs was pretty much screwing him proper. But that's all speculation.
What isn't speculation is this: as other people in that other thread (The Former Doctor Who) have pointed out, all hell has broken loose in fandom...sigh...again. Chris Eccleson should be getting his first shipment of boiled bunnies any time now.
And this behavior, sadly, *does* reinforce the image of a lot of Sci fi fans as ... looneys. And if I was a certain type of actor I might be... reluctant .. to take on that freight.
Especially since, in the end, it doesn't matter that the fans are almost always wrong.
(Oh Denis, oh snap, you're so evil, I need my smelling salts.)
But let's look at history, shall we? Not the rewritten, rose colored glass kind -- but the real history.
In the real Sci Fi history -- Blade Runner was a flop when it came out. People were violently opposed to Star Trek: The Next Generation. Complained voiciferously about how Patrick Stewart was terrible and no Kirk, how Data was warmed over Spock. The X-Files started out with horribly low ratings. People mocked Buffy the Vampire Slayer and said it would never work as a series; it looked cheap, Sarah Michelle Gellar was bad; the rest of the cast was weak. Babylon 5 was a cheap Star Trek knock off - and depending on who you talked to, either sucked because it was ripping off Star Trek, or DS9 sucked because it ripped off B5. (When in truth, they were both just sci fi shows, and at times, damn good ones. And in the end very different.) Taking this into the present, the BSG remake was going to suck, Edward James Olmos was going to be bad and deserved hate mail. So did Katee Sackhoff, and James Callis was no John Colicos as Baltar. Just for good measure? The Ring was going to suck and not be anywhere as good as Ringu....and on, and on, and on.
What all of these things have in common is that snap judgements that were made by overactive, hyper critical fans turned out to be...piffle. You're going to find very few people today who will admit that they hated Blade Runner when it came out. You'll find very few people who'll say that Patrick Stewart sucks in the Role of Picard. But that doesn't mean that that wasn't a major, major opinion block at the time.
I honestly think that fans of this genre are very quick to judge, and too quick, in fact, to pre-judge. And once they pre-judge, they're deathly slow to ever admit, "hey, you know what? I was wrong! That's actually pretty cool."
It's way easier to sniff at shows that you loved that got sh*t canned maybe before they should have. And rail against "stupid network people" who don't get it.
But on balance, what's to get, when so many self-proclaimed "fans" don't get it themselves? Far from the comforts of history and feeling, like Religious Republicans in the US who manage to control the whole government and still think they're under a state of siege, I think a lot of fans would do well to look at your own series of reactions, pre-reactions, and hasty judgements and ask, if in fact, your line of thinking is the best thing for the genre as a whole. Is it going to get you more shows you like? If you insist on eating your young before they're birthed, then how do really, honestly expect to keep creative, sensitive people putting out for you?
I would point to Katee Sackhoff. I think a plurality of reasonable people think that she's doing a pretty good job, on balance, in the new BSG. But even when you read her statements in the press acknowledging that fans are starting to come around, there's still a lot of scar and hurt there from getting a rough ride before you had any right to judge her for anything.
Years from now, she may have done eight seasons as Starbuck. And it may be a very successful rich experience for her -- but there will always be that part of her that will remember that she was treated cruelly before she ever had a chance to prove herself.
And it's fans that did that. Fans of a genre that like to think that somehow they're unappreciated or discounted.
Now Eccleson's burned in effigy and maybe it wasn't even the poor bloke's fault.
Something to think about, if you have the guts to actually give it a good mulling over.
But don't feel *too* bad (like that's even possible)
Remember that even Anne Rice, bigshot author, had to eat crow after Interview With The Vampire -- going on record in an ugly and public way slamming Cruise for playing Lestat before he played the role, and then voiceferously recanting after she saw his performance.
The difference is: she did it. She admitted it.
But maybe if some weren't quite so ... ugly .. in their criticism at the sight unseen stage, there wouldn't be so much ..."Comic Book Guy Worthy" lunacy to dial yourself back from.
After all -- yes, I hated Jar Jar too. But I also saw the 10 year olds who loved him.
Fan is one thing. Good. Fanatic, another. Bad.
DMc
Ron Moore, Exec Producer, Battlestar Galactica and Bonnie Hammer, President, Sci-Fi Channel (USA) interviewed on KCRW's "The Business" - April 12
First part of the interview revealed that SciFi's BSG by their standards consider the show a huge hit. 3 million neighborhood of viewers a week, and better, gold demographics for the station. Plus critical acclaim, and the fact that evidence shows a lot of those viewers are 'drama' fans and not necessarily Sci-Fi fans.
At the end of the interview talk turned to Fans and how much you should listen to them, or follow your own vision.
Ronald Moore:
The lesson you learn is that you can't pay too close attention to it. You listen to them, you interact with them, you try to see what the fans respond to, and what they like or don't like because it's sort of telltale sign in general terms what the broader audience likes and doesn't like, but you never give over the show to them. I mean in the runup to Battlestar Galactica the miniseries coming on the air, you know I spent some time online, communicated with some of the fans, read some of the postings and things but i never allowed any of that to really change what we were doing, if I didn't think it worked. I find it a mistake to try and turn it into a democracy.
Question: Do you have to listen more closely, Bonnie? If you get 500 letters does it mean more to the Sci-fi channel than if 500 people write into CBS or NBC about something?
Bonnie Hammer:
500 letters is a day's worth of sci fi fans being happy or sad about something. We get thousands upon thousands when our fans are dissatisfied. I think what happens in success is when smart producers can hear the concerns, acknowledge the concerns rather than ignore them, but then be smart enough in how they translate whatever the franchise is, whether they make it campier or straighter, more intellectual --whatever -- but they don't either mock what came before, but can enhance what came before. And that's why I think Battlestar Galactica worked.
Question: What's the takeaway? What have you learned?
Ronald Moore:
That risk pays off. there was a lot of naysaying from sort of the some elements of the fan community, and there were doubts along the way, it was an expensive show and there were a lot of risks. But all the risks paid off
Alot of people are actully saying now how much more they Liked Dawn 04 then land, when everyone Stated how much they absoultly hated running zombies and the acting and this and that.
But over time, its starting to change.
Basicly, If it was up to the fans, we would have had Bub in a mall, with fran and rodger and flyboy helping Ben.
It's good to be a Fan
But not a Fanatic