Thirdspace and Ivanova

[hypatia]

Ah, right. Thanks, KF.

 

[Jan]

I think this is where JMS coined the term "wham episodes":

Like Tolkien, and Jonathan Carroll, whose wonderful books start out
looking very nice and comfortable...and gradually take you to someplace
strange and dark and unique...I've tried to apply a similar structure to
Babylon 5. It seems to be chugging along at a good clip along relatively
familiar terrain. Now my job is to walk up alongside the story with a
crowbar and give it a good, hard WHAM! to move it into a different
trajectory. "Parliament" was just sort of a preliminary nudge. "And the
Sky Full of Stars" was a good, solid WHAM! This week's episode, "Signs
and Portents," is another WHAM, even bigger than the one that precedes it.

There are two more major WHAM episodes: "Babylon Squared," dealing
with the fate of Babylon 4, and "Chrysalis," our season ender, which is
really more of an atomic bomb rather than a crowbar.

Jan

 

[hypatia]

Ah, that is a good description.

Thanks, Jan. I fear all I can think of are the old Batman series episodes when I think of "Wham". That and the ending to "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" (Cary Grant and Myrna Loy movie).

It fits, though.

 

[Cell]

But it's the script that comes first, it is the foundation everything is built on. Second comes the director. A really good director can sometimes get acceptable performances out of marginal actors. A bad director can ruin a script, and waste the actors. Third comes the actors. ALL are important to the finished product, and any can ruin the work. But, that is their hierarchy of importance to the finished work. Now, I will duck, while the editors throw bricks at me...

Sorry, I just don't agree with that. Directors are not miracle workers, and in that regard they are often given far too much credit. For me it all comes down to writing and acting, and they are on an equal playing field, you can't have one without the other. Editing is a tricky thing, a good edit can help a decent film look good, whereas a bad edit can cause a good film to look bad. Then you have the the score to worry about as well, and not a one of us have even mentioned the cinematographers yet...

 

[Garovorkin]

Cell Quatermass and the Pit 1958 tv serial had most of those elements, Writing of course by Nigel Kneal, great actors, the direction was good as was the editing, this six part serial was typical of what the BBC produced in that it was done on the cheap. But with what they had to work with results were very impressive,Lacking expensive special effects they were able to generate suspense and a sense of unease, Even by todays standards its still a great piece of scif Television Drama, comparable to such shows as the Outer limits and the Twilight zone. It was a remarkable dramatic achievement given the television standards of the time. Sorry to be broken record on this one, Kneale to me was a great television writer and the Movie adaption made in 1967 Quatermass and the Pit aka Five million years to earth directed by titanic director Rob Baker still great stuff.

 

[KoshFan]

Y'know, Garov, it's a common internet convention that typing in all caps is the equivalent of shouting all the time. I'm beginning to think that your typing style is the equivalent of talking very, very fast...

 

[Garovorkin]

No actually, I am a lousy typist, not given to shouting really. Use of captial letters shouting?

 

[Jade Jaguar]

and not a one of us have even mentioned the cinematographers yet...

Yes, the cinematographer is very important as well. The score is also important, but less so, IMO. You only have to sit through the credits at the end of a film (I always do...) to see how many people contribute, and how labor intensive making a modern motion picture is. But, in mainstream cinema, a film is a story. A story is the creation of the writer(s). The story is, literally and figuratively, of primary importance. But, I see I can't convince you, so I will forgo restating that again... :brickwall::brickwall:

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Directors are not miracle workers, and in that regard they are often given far too much credit.

The great ones are.

 

[Garovorkin]

Good cinematography can make a good film better and conversely a bad film much worse, because then its short comings become more apparent.

 

[Garovorkin]

With me, starts with a good story, then the director then the actors, then the editors , ect. By the way Koshfan , no sarcasm was intend with statement about being a lousy typist, I tend not to even pay attention to how I type, I just simply type.

 

[vacantlook]

...For me it all comes down to writing and acting, and they are on an equal playing field, you can't have one without the other....

Yeah, actually, one can have one without the other. Writing without actors is called a script. Actors without writing is either called improv or it's called unemployment.

 

[hypatia]

Good point, VL.

But, in fairness, isn't a writer with just a script equally unemployed?

 

[Jan]

But, in fairness, isn't a writer with just a script equally unemployed?

Not in Hollyweird. There, vastly more scripts are purchased, optioned or commissioned than ever get made.

Jan

 

[hypatia]

Yea, I think I've heard that before.

How unsatisfying, though. :wtf:

 

[Cell]

Yes, the cinematographer is very important as well. The score is also important, but less so, IMO. You only have to sit through the credits at the end of a film (I always do...) to see how many people contribute, and how labor intensive making a modern motion picture is. But, in mainstream cinema, a film is a story. A story is the creation of the writer(s). The story is, literally and figuratively, of primary importance. But, I see I can't convince you, so I will forgo restating that again... :brickwall::brickwall:

I have never said that the story itself isn't of the utmost importance, but the fact is that in the visual medium the actors convey that story. In a written medium a great story can be a great story in and of itself, but in the visual medium a great story needs the actors to pull it off otherwise it ends up being a mediocre story.

 

[KoshFan]

No actually, I am a lousy typist, not given to shouting really. Use of captial letters shouting?

That's the general convention.

With me, starts with a good story, then the director then the actors, then the editors , ect. By the way Koshfan , no sarcasm was intend with statement about being a lousy typist, I tend not to even pay attention to how I type, I just simply type.

Which on the net is much the same as speaking without thinking.

in the visual medium a great story needs the actors to pull it off otherwise it ends up being a mediocre story.

However, the writers can always rewrite their script for a non-visual medium, whereas actors can't get very far without something in front of them. The story can be told in a lot of different ways. Yeah, that's cheating because we're talking about movies, but it's also quite true: you can bounce from being a scriptwriter to a novelist, but an actor has to stay an actor.

 

[Garovorkin]

Point taken Koshfan.

 

[Triple F]

yada yada yada.........
........, but an actor has to stay an actor.

Does anyone know Clint Eastwoods phone number, I need to give him a call and tell him his directorial career just ain't going to happen because someone in a Kosh suit says so.

And that tv actor what’s his face . . . . . Richie Cunningham should give up any pretence of changing his name to Ron Howard and trying to see if he can work a camera.

Definitive statements like that about actors KoshFan is the written equivalent of trying to chat up the barstool the blonde was sitting on 10 minutes earlier.

 

[vacantlook]

Does anyone know Clint Eastwoods phone number, I need to give him a call and tell him his directorial career just ain't going to happen because someone in a Kosh suit says so.

And that tv actor what’s his face . . . . . Richie Cunningham should give up any pretence of changing his name to Ron Howard and trying to see if he can work a camera.

Definitive statements like that about actors KoshFan is the written equivalent of trying to chat up the barstool the blonde was sitting on 10 minutes earlier.

Actors-turned-directors still need a writer to write them a script, otherwise they'd be stuck filming documentaries, and, even then, ones without narration. KF's point is that a script writer can still be a writer by turning to a different medium, ie novels; actors on the other hand can't still be actors without a writer to give them a script. At least, that's what I understood from reading KF's comment.