BTW...when somebody ways things like '...was poorly written..." could I suggest an example? Because chances are, without the kind of credentials to match the one who actually did write what you're complaining about, what you're actually saying is a grandiose "I just didn't like it".
Sure! That's a good question!
Ok, I already mentioned the scene from "A view from the gallery" where random guest stars inform us that we HAVE to like Lochley, and that she's a total badass. That's an example of bad writing because she hasn't earned that kind of regard from us yet.
Okay, that makes sense. Except that you're overlooking the next part, where JMS practically breaks the fourth wall and addresses the rumors going around the station about why Ivanova left. We were just shown Lochley in action and a character voiced an opinion vs rumors floating around about her and about Ivanova. The two together pretty much equal 'wait and see' to me.
If you like. The question was "when somebody ways things like '...was poorly written..." could I suggest an example? Because chances are, without the kind of credentials to match the one who actually did write what you're complaining about, what you're actually saying is a grandiose "I just didn't like it"."
I gave an example. And, yeah, it's a 4th-wall breaker, and I get the point, but I feel the scene is poorly written (The gag is way too pointed, way too obvious), poorly acted, and on the whole I think the episode is sub-par. This is opinion, of course, but you wanted an example so I gave you an example of what constitutes 'poorly written' to me.
In fact, I consider that entire episode to be an example of a good idea that was very poorly written/executed. I didn't like either Mac or Bo, and it felt very stagey, even though some of their lines were pretty good. The discussion of the floor-cleaners was clever, but the delivery killed it. The discussion of 'tastes like chicken' was not clever, and the delivery was bad. And the whole episode felt forced. An enemy we've never heard of before or since does more damage to B5 than the entire Shadow War and the Civil War managed - combined - and yet there's no repercussions. The point was just a forced plot to give our two goofuses a reason to fall through random encounters with people we already know, and show us how they look to "The little people." The episode just didn't work.
For you. I on the other hand loved it, especially the chemistry between Mac and Bo. Much the way I loved the first season episodes which expanded the universe and station to more than the command staff. You have a point about the 'raiders' except that nameless raiders have always been the threat of the day on B5, hardly ever being caught or pursued. And there really wasn't that much damage, as I recall.
THEY BLEW OUT A HUGE SECTION OF THE HULL! The only time we've seen more damage to the station was when the Centauri blew off the cargo stabilizer. And THIS attack was on the rotating section, which, by its nature, would be far more devestating then attacking an industrial or storage area. Also: they weren't raiders, they were aliens. Remember the whole "Methane colors the explosions" thing? And their space suits? Not raiders. They're an alien species. Delenn mentions their name at one point, but I can't recalll it.
Generally speaking, I like format-breaking episodes of TV shows. "Lower Decks" from TNG is a great format-breaker that does the same thing as this better (Probably the only time you'll ever hear me say that about anything in TNG, a show I really didn't like). Most of the episodes from the final season of M*A*S*H are great for just that reason. Episodes like "Point of No Return" and "Cloverdale" from the Stargate shows are awesome format-breakers. Anything that expands a fictional universe is good in my book, assuming it's well told.
This just wasn't. But we're not english majors having an argument, so there's not really a reason to take it further than 'here's the reasons I didn't like it, and here's the reasons you did.'
I have a lot of the same problems with "The Illusion of Truth." It's a really clever idea, but it's poorly executed. In order to get the soundbites the reporter needs for his propagandistic view of B5, JMS has to make all his characters act in very self-conscious ways, saying things they wouldn't normally say or reacting in ways they wouldn't normally, so the whole episode feels false and contrived.
Need another real example here. Because what made that episode effective was the re-editing of the questions. You may actually be right to an extent but for a one-episode message, TV generally needs to be a bit on the obvious side. It also was done in the mid-90s when most of us were still thinking that news held an amount of responsibility. Silly us.
Jan
Nahhhhhhhhhh, everyone was already cynical as hell in the '90s. When you say you need another example, do you mean you need a 3rd episode I feel is poorly written, or that you need me to be more specific about "The Illusion of Truth?" (Conversely, I felt "And now for a word" made use of the same basic idea, but did it much better)
