Many romances (G, PG, and R)* include villainous heroes--these are heroes that for all intents and purposes act not too differently from the bad guy: they kidnap the heroine, occasionally threaten her, and behave ruthlessly. Oddly enough, they rarely stalk (take that, Edward!) although they aren't adverse to interfering in the heroine's life when they believe themselves justified.
Naturally, in real life, one would question the advisability of pursuing a man of this type. In fiction, however, the villainous hero can be a lot of fun.
However, even in fiction, the villainous hero can prove problematic. I've read novels where the villainous hero won my endorsement, and I've read novels where the villainous hero caused me to roll my eyes: Oh, please, how on earth is the heroine supposed to know the difference between him and the bad guy?
I think it comes down to a matter of writing. Here are characterizations that distinguish the worthwhile villainous hero from the ridiculous villainous hero:
1. The villainous hero undergoes a change.
That is, by the end of the novel, the villainous hero has recognized the inappropriateness of his earlier behavior. In Prince of Dreams (R) by Lisa Kleypas, the hero actually undergoes a Scrooge-like dream sequence which teaches him a new way of relating to others.
However, in another novel by Kleypas, Tempt Me at Twilight (R) the hero is not only the same person when the novel ends, but . . .
2. The writer acknowledges that the villainous hero should change his behavior.
. . . the writer seems to justify the villainous hero's behavior.
By the way, I do mean the writer, not the narrator. One problem with the Twilight series, as Carole points out, is that Meyers didn't seem aware that she was creating a stalky, dysfunctional hero. If she just didn't care, eh, c'est la vie (this post is for writerly reasons, not politically correct ones), but she tried to justify Edward's behavior--always a mistake.
This issue of writer disconnect also arose in Buffy where Spike was treated like a villainous hero (a character capable of change and of being loved by Buffy) by the writers who then wanted to pretend they weren't doing precisely what they were doing: "Spike's a bad guy! Girls, don't you realize how bad Spike is?!"
Once the rules are established (some vampires, like Angel, can be forgiven), writers need to keep them.
3. The villainous hero is a bad boy--but not egregiously so.
That is, his faults fall into the forgivable range (I am excluding recently souled vampires). In the above mentioned Kleypas books, the villainous hero in Prince of Dreams confronts and scares off the heroine's current boyfriend. This is bad but not unforgivable. The boyfriend is a shallow Wickham-type character. Plus, the villainous hero does the confronting himself.
In the second book, the hero scares off the heroine's current boyfriend, but the boyfriend is just a waffling putz, and the hero doesn't do the confronting himself; he manipulates events into forcing the boyfriend to retreat. Setting aside the badness of a relationship built on manipulation, it's completely underhanded and not at all heroic.
Frankly, Kleypas did a better job with this particular plot device the first time.
4. The villainous hero is more interesting than the other characters.
Part of what makes the villainous hero so much fun is his sarcastic sense of humor. (In a total aside, Britishers do this better than anybody else; in the first Pirates movie, Jack Davenport as Norrington comes across as attractive and heroic ex-boyfriend rather than baffled and bumbling ex-boyfriend precisely because of his dry sarcasm and wry raised eyebrow. At one point, after he has declared that Sparrow is a terrible pirate, Sparrow gets away. A sailor exclaims, "That is the best pirate I have ever seen!" Instead of looking embarrassed or outraged, Davenport as Norrington just looks completely miffed.)
A villainous hero who can't outwit everyone else is a dead-loss. What's he the villainous hero for?
I place Mr. B of Pamela and Mr. B Speaks! (my personal tribute) into this category. As one of my characters states, "Mr. B is a very funny guy." Without Mr. B as a sparring partner, Pamela would be a good deal less interesting and interested. (By the way, it is not necessary to read Pamela to read Mr. B Speaks! since the plot of the original novel is fully described in both. Not that I normally discourage reading classics! But the writing style of Pamela seems to put off a lot of people.)
5. The reader believes at the end that the heroine is with the right person.
To refer again to Kleypas's books, the heroine in Prince of Dreams is exactly and precisely with the right person. She is strong-minded, tough, and more than a little capable of handling the hero.
However, I doubt the heroine in Kleypas's second book, who just wants a peaceful life but ends up with an alpha-needy-dominant husband, will have everlasting happiness (by the way, I feel the same way about romances where a highly opinionated, constantly challenging-the-man, pushy heroine marries a man who really just wants some peace and quiet).
For those of you who prefer G/PG* romance novels, check out Pamela (and Mr. B Speaks!), Georgette Heyer, and, naturally, Jane Austen. Richardson is quite convincing regarding Pamela's ability to handle Mr. B. Not only do you get the impression that Pamela can handle a man approximately 9 years her senior, you also get the impression she would be bored out of her skull with anyone else.
Regarding Georgette Heyer's novels, I consider the relationship between innocent (but worldly-wise) Leonie and the cynical Duke of Avon in These Old Shades entirely believable. I'm less sold on the romantic relationship in Devil's Cub although the villainous hero Vidal does fall under the "more interesting than any other character" label.
Out of all Heyer's villainous heroes, however, Dameral of Venetia gets the prize, not for himself but for the very real friendship that develops between him and Venetia. (This is actually the direction I think Whedon's writers were taking Buffy and Spike before they shied off.)
Regarding Austen, Darcy could be described as a villainous hero (he has the dark, glowering look), but as I argue in A Man of Few Words, Darcy's supposedly villainous behavior is more cluelessness and discomfort than outright villainy. In terms of hard-to-manage heroines, I think Knightley can manage Emma but only just and only because Emma's interferences are based on good will, not merely on a sense of entitlement.
On a slight tangent: Heyer has the under-appreciated (and under-utilized) ability to make extremely laid-back, non-villainous heroes interesting in their own right. The Quiet Gentleman and Sprig Muslin come to mind.
On another slight tangent: Jane Austen should be given kudos for creating villains who seem heroic but turn out to be deadheads: Wickham, Willoughby, and (that most subtle of villains) Henry Crawford.
6. The true villain still needs to be worse!
Moral and ethical standards should never be entirely abandoned. A heroine who marries a villain, no matter how attractive, will lose the support of the reader. "My man right or wrong" only works as long as the man is weaving his way towards the right, and "my man must be right because I love him" only works if the reader knows the heroine is correct (by getting inside the hero's head). Otherwise, the heroine will come across as a vapid moron, the hero as a scoundrel, and nobody will be respected in the morning.
*I use these ratings not because I think they actually make sense in terms of evaluating a film (or novel) but because of their colloquial meaning in everyday life. For the purposes of this blog, "R" means sex scenes are described; "PG" means they are referred to and kissing goes on; "G" means the hero and heroine kiss, that's all. However, I'm not even broaching the issue of innuendo or theme. (Such as Dracula which is "G" only in the most narrow technical sense; actually the whole crazy novel totters on the edge of "R+"--not that Bram Stoker was aware of this.) I've seen "R" movies that were incredibly "clean" in the wholesome story sense, and I've seen "PG" movies that were technically clean but totally skanky in feel. Everyone has their own line when it comes to this issue, and my designations are simply to help people find their comfort level.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Stargate: Season 5 Review
In this review, I discuss Michael Shanks dissatisfaction with Stargate, the problem of spoofiness (when it works/when it doesn't), Stargate's best 2-parter, and why Jack is such a great leader.
Enemies: Jack, Daniel, Sam and Sam's dad are stuck millions of miles from earth and . . . they run into the replicators. Ugh. There are few things more boring than mechanical insects. This is one reason the Borg were so cool—technology PLUS a human face. However, this episode does prepare us for one of the most interesting Stargate episodes . . .
Threshold: As Teal'c fights his brainwashing by Apophis, we get to see his history/conversion to the Teal'c we know and love. The vignettes are well-done as well as believable: Teal'c's original story is one of slow self-discovery as he evaluates his personal theology against his own observations and cultural beliefs. His is less the act of a rebel and more the act of a mature man. He doesn't replace his old beliefs with anti-ism but rather with a new way of thinking (or, rather, he is waiting and hoping for a new way of thinking when he runs into SG-1). Very cool.
Ascension: Nice alien-visitor episode starring the very sexy Sean Patrick Flanery. It is also a Carter episode that takes place outside the base, which is a nice change. And this episode tells us more about Teal'c's likes: Star Wars!
This episode also includes a great line by Jack. When Carter expresses surprise that he has never seen Star Wars, he says, "Well, you know me and sci-fi."
Absolutely! Sci-fi would be totally normal, everyday life to the people living it.
The Fifth Man: Interesting episode about a being that can insert its way into people's lives and thoughts. This episode establishes a technology/ability that will show up later in a very cool 2-parter. John de Lancie does a great job as the suspicious, antagonistic Colonel Simmons (a kind of terse "Q").
Red Sky: An episode that deals with potential bad consequences of SG-1's gate-travel. Me, I just always figured there was a mop-up crew who came along later to clean up SG-1's loose ends, kind of like the Federation diplomatic core that comes along after Picard ushers a new planet into the Federation and takes off in his ship. (Although in general, SG-1 is more than willing to clean up its own loose ends when it knows about them.)
Rite of Passage: So, little girls from prior seasons do grow up to be obnoxious teenagers. (It is a different actress playing Cassandra although four years can make that big a difference!)
This is one of those episodes which is resolved with people breaking rules in a way that, if the SG-C wasn't such a secret organization, would result in a court-martial.
Beast of Burden: An interesting episode about slavery. The writers did an excellent job demonstrating the matter-of-fact attitude of the slave trader. It is despicable but true to life.
The episode ends in a fairly messy way, but it is one of those episodes where a non-messy solution really isn't possible.
The Tomb: The bugs are back! This time, it is a real bug. Ho hum.
Between Two Fires: This starts out as a murder mystery, morphs into a political-oriented suspense, and turns into preparation for later military-type episodes. In general, this season seems to be about the outcome of unintended consequences.
2001: Nice episode referencing the episode "2010" from Season 4. It also has the feel of Season 4 episodes with Daniel doing archaeological research, Jack pointing out the obvious commonsense solution, and Carter saving the planet.
Desperate Measures: Not a totally uninteresting episode that sets up political and military conflicts for later. However, this episode reminds me that this is the season where Michael Shanks decided to leave (he then came back because in Hollywood a consistent income is harder to come by than even fame and fortune, and he's not an idiot). His decision, or at least part of his decision, was Stargate was no longer telling planet-based narratives, and he was right. The show was beginning to be more about BIG BAD ONGOING PROBLEMS than cohesive "figure out the issue on this particular planet" single story-lines. Episodes still had strong individual arcs but more and more episodes depended on prior events and had military or diplomacy themes.
Wormhole X-Treme: One of those episodes that spoofs itself. This sort of thing is only possible in later seasons, and it doesn't always work. The problem with a show spoofing itself is that the writers risk losing the show's fans. I think Stargate fans are fun and relaxed enough to grin at some spoofiness. But that's largely because the directors and writers of Stargate are pretty fun and loose people.
When Buffy mocked itself, on the other hand, there was always this feeling that the writers and director Really Meant It. They were using the spoof to comment on the wackiness of fans or the nature of reality. This sort of spoofiness is just tiresome.
In order for a spoof to work it needs to be either fun and cute (not take itself seriously at all) or have heart. When reviewing Princess Bride, I realized that although Goldman is sort of spoofing the fantasy genre, he does it with so much love and affection--heart--it doesn't feel like a spoof. The same is true of Galaxy Quest's spoof of Star Trek. These spoofs are tributes rather than mockeries.
"Wormhole X-Treme" is fun and cute. It has some classic moments like the moment when the director and Martin can't explain why a person out of phase wouldn't fall through the floor; when Peter DeLuise keeps shouting "Bigger" at the prop guys; and when Jack, as the Air Force consultant, keeps suggesting that the characters "just shoot" the aliens ("Sure, why not?").
Proving Ground: One of my absolute favorites with Hailey (Elizabeth Rosen) and Lieutenant Elliott (Courtenay Stevens) plus Grace Park from Battlestar Galactica! (This was actually before BG.) I love the ending—a wonderful rite-of-passage-meets-heroism moment.
48 Hours: Another diplomatic/military quagmire where Simmons puts pressure on Hammond to reopen the gate, Daniel deals with angry Russians, and Carter works with McKay to save Teal'c.
Stargate does diplomatic quagmire episodes very well, but I get a tad tired of them. However, this episode does one thing very, very, very, very well: Rodney McKay. I've always been impressed that they let McKay stay McKay. He becomes more likable in Stargate: Atlantis, but he is still McKay.
And I always love it when Maybourne shows up.
Summit & Last Stand: This is one of the few military two-parters that I really, really like. Daniel is used intelligently in this episode as an undercover agent skilled in diplomacy and fluent Goa-uld. Courtenay Vance shows up as Lt. Elliot in a marvelous and touching pay-off for "Proving Ground" (the character really should have his own fan fiction). The mission that SG-1 is on makes sense; it also makes sense to abort it. The new bad guy is introduced in a clever way. Compared to Stargate's 2-part season enders, this 2-parter is in a class by itself.
Fail Safe: An asteroid is going to hit the earth! I like the use of the SG engineers in the beginning of this episode. Otherwise, it is a pure action episode with a little bit of a twist. Again, it shows the growing difference between this season and the earlier SG-1 seasons. Not a lot of investigating-a-new-place going on!
Warrior: This episode deals with an ongoing issue: what will become of the Jaffa once/if the Goa'uld are destroyed? It also addresses the problem of replacing one obsession with another. The ending is something of a let-down since it fails to address the problem, falling back on "hey, he was a Goa'uld all along!" However, there are two things I like about this episode: (1) Jack's unrepentant attitude that his modern, American, Western, secular view of the universe is in fact a darn good way to view the universe; (2) the explanation for why SG-1 continues to use guns rather than staff weapons even though staff weapons look cooler: guns are just way more practical.
Menace: This is one of those "bring an impossibly dangerous item back through the Stargate" episodes. You'd think General Hammond would stop allowing this to happen.
But it does put a face to the replicators (finally).
The Sentinel: Another ongoing issue episode (in this case, the N.I.D's nefarious behavior). There is a nice character arc/pay-off. Otherwise, this episode definitely confirms Michael Shanks' belief that Stargate was heading in a new direction. The end of Season 5 is considerably different in tone/style from Seasons 1-4.
Meridian: Daniel's death/ascension and the introduction of Jonas Quinn. As a leave-taking, this episode is very well-done with a great heroic sub-plot. Also, we get to see how much Jack's personality/views have rubbed off on Daniel, and I like that Daniel turns to Jack to explain his final decision.
Revelations: And . . . it's back to another military episode. And . . . I already miss Daniel. It's sad that he's not there to deliver deadpan looks when Jack starts rambling ("Don't you think we should put a seat back here?")
The new problem with the Asgard is fairly interesting, but Anubis as the new bad guy is fairly boring. Again, no face. Ho hum.
I do love the little smirk Jack gives at the end of the episode, indicating that he knows Daniel is nearby. Jack's inner certainty dovetails with the Asgard's belief that despite Daniel's more philosophical nature and Carter's genius level intelligence, Jack is representative of the future of the human race. He is both down-to-earth and open-minded, rooted in the present and more than ready to take on the future. His leadership is based on letting other people do their thing, getting input, then making a concrete decision. And he always backs his people.
In fact, Jack is one of the best leaders/centers I've ever seen in an ongoing series. He never fails to interest/amuse, but at the same time, he doesn't hog the story. He's a non-sagging-the-storyline center.
Even with Season 5's new direction, Stargate is still great sci-fi!
Enemies: Jack, Daniel, Sam and Sam's dad are stuck millions of miles from earth and . . . they run into the replicators. Ugh. There are few things more boring than mechanical insects. This is one reason the Borg were so cool—technology PLUS a human face. However, this episode does prepare us for one of the most interesting Stargate episodes . . .
Threshold: As Teal'c fights his brainwashing by Apophis, we get to see his history/conversion to the Teal'c we know and love. The vignettes are well-done as well as believable: Teal'c's original story is one of slow self-discovery as he evaluates his personal theology against his own observations and cultural beliefs. His is less the act of a rebel and more the act of a mature man. He doesn't replace his old beliefs with anti-ism but rather with a new way of thinking (or, rather, he is waiting and hoping for a new way of thinking when he runs into SG-1). Very cool.
Ascension: Nice alien-visitor episode starring the very sexy Sean Patrick Flanery. It is also a Carter episode that takes place outside the base, which is a nice change. And this episode tells us more about Teal'c's likes: Star Wars!
This episode also includes a great line by Jack. When Carter expresses surprise that he has never seen Star Wars, he says, "Well, you know me and sci-fi."
Absolutely! Sci-fi would be totally normal, everyday life to the people living it.
The Fifth Man: Interesting episode about a being that can insert its way into people's lives and thoughts. This episode establishes a technology/ability that will show up later in a very cool 2-parter. John de Lancie does a great job as the suspicious, antagonistic Colonel Simmons (a kind of terse "Q").
Red Sky: An episode that deals with potential bad consequences of SG-1's gate-travel. Me, I just always figured there was a mop-up crew who came along later to clean up SG-1's loose ends, kind of like the Federation diplomatic core that comes along after Picard ushers a new planet into the Federation and takes off in his ship. (Although in general, SG-1 is more than willing to clean up its own loose ends when it knows about them.)
Rite of Passage: So, little girls from prior seasons do grow up to be obnoxious teenagers. (It is a different actress playing Cassandra although four years can make that big a difference!)
This is one of those episodes which is resolved with people breaking rules in a way that, if the SG-C wasn't such a secret organization, would result in a court-martial.
Beast of Burden: An interesting episode about slavery. The writers did an excellent job demonstrating the matter-of-fact attitude of the slave trader. It is despicable but true to life.
The episode ends in a fairly messy way, but it is one of those episodes where a non-messy solution really isn't possible.
The Tomb: The bugs are back! This time, it is a real bug. Ho hum.
Between Two Fires: This starts out as a murder mystery, morphs into a political-oriented suspense, and turns into preparation for later military-type episodes. In general, this season seems to be about the outcome of unintended consequences.
2001: Nice episode referencing the episode "2010" from Season 4. It also has the feel of Season 4 episodes with Daniel doing archaeological research, Jack pointing out the obvious commonsense solution, and Carter saving the planet.
When Buffy mocked itself, on the other hand, there was always this feeling that the writers and director Really Meant It. They were using the spoof to comment on the wackiness of fans or the nature of reality. This sort of spoofiness is just tiresome.
In order for a spoof to work it needs to be either fun and cute (not take itself seriously at all) or have heart. When reviewing Princess Bride, I realized that although Goldman is sort of spoofing the fantasy genre, he does it with so much love and affection--heart--it doesn't feel like a spoof. The same is true of Galaxy Quest's spoof of Star Trek. These spoofs are tributes rather than mockeries.
"Wormhole X-Treme" is fun and cute. It has some classic moments like the moment when the director and Martin can't explain why a person out of phase wouldn't fall through the floor; when Peter DeLuise keeps shouting "Bigger" at the prop guys; and when Jack, as the Air Force consultant, keeps suggesting that the characters "just shoot" the aliens ("Sure, why not?").
48 Hours: Another diplomatic/military quagmire where Simmons puts pressure on Hammond to reopen the gate, Daniel deals with angry Russians, and Carter works with McKay to save Teal'c.
Stargate does diplomatic quagmire episodes very well, but I get a tad tired of them. However, this episode does one thing very, very, very, very well: Rodney McKay. I've always been impressed that they let McKay stay McKay. He becomes more likable in Stargate: Atlantis, but he is still McKay.
And I always love it when Maybourne shows up.
Summit & Last Stand: This is one of the few military two-parters that I really, really like. Daniel is used intelligently in this episode as an undercover agent skilled in diplomacy and fluent Goa-uld. Courtenay Vance shows up as Lt. Elliot in a marvelous and touching pay-off for "Proving Ground" (the character really should have his own fan fiction). The mission that SG-1 is on makes sense; it also makes sense to abort it. The new bad guy is introduced in a clever way. Compared to Stargate's 2-part season enders, this 2-parter is in a class by itself.
Fail Safe: An asteroid is going to hit the earth! I like the use of the SG engineers in the beginning of this episode. Otherwise, it is a pure action episode with a little bit of a twist. Again, it shows the growing difference between this season and the earlier SG-1 seasons. Not a lot of investigating-a-new-place going on!
Warrior: This episode deals with an ongoing issue: what will become of the Jaffa once/if the Goa'uld are destroyed? It also addresses the problem of replacing one obsession with another. The ending is something of a let-down since it fails to address the problem, falling back on "hey, he was a Goa'uld all along!" However, there are two things I like about this episode: (1) Jack's unrepentant attitude that his modern, American, Western, secular view of the universe is in fact a darn good way to view the universe; (2) the explanation for why SG-1 continues to use guns rather than staff weapons even though staff weapons look cooler: guns are just way more practical.
Menace: This is one of those "bring an impossibly dangerous item back through the Stargate" episodes. You'd think General Hammond would stop allowing this to happen.
But it does put a face to the replicators (finally).
The Sentinel: Another ongoing issue episode (in this case, the N.I.D's nefarious behavior). There is a nice character arc/pay-off. Otherwise, this episode definitely confirms Michael Shanks' belief that Stargate was heading in a new direction. The end of Season 5 is considerably different in tone/style from Seasons 1-4.
Meridian: Daniel's death/ascension and the introduction of Jonas Quinn. As a leave-taking, this episode is very well-done with a great heroic sub-plot. Also, we get to see how much Jack's personality/views have rubbed off on Daniel, and I like that Daniel turns to Jack to explain his final decision.
Revelations: And . . . it's back to another military episode. And . . . I already miss Daniel. It's sad that he's not there to deliver deadpan looks when Jack starts rambling ("Don't you think we should put a seat back here?")
The new problem with the Asgard is fairly interesting, but Anubis as the new bad guy is fairly boring. Again, no face. Ho hum.
In fact, Jack is one of the best leaders/centers I've ever seen in an ongoing series. He never fails to interest/amuse, but at the same time, he doesn't hog the story. He's a non-sagging-the-storyline center.
Even with Season 5's new direction, Stargate is still great sci-fi!
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Kate's Criteria for Action Movies
Although I don't much enjoy pure action books or television series, I rather like a good action movie. Here are my criteria for what makes a good action movie:
1. The hero or heroine is a thinker as well as a fighter.
For example, both Jason Bourne and Tony Stark, although physically adept and more than willing to utilize weapons when necessary, are primarily thinking-men. They problem-solve rather than just react. In fact, in some of my favorites, such The Fugitive, the hero doesn't even fight: Dr. Richard Kimble is entirely a thinking-man (but then, of course, Deputy Marshal Gerard does all the shooting).
2. There is one main character arc.
Sarah Connor accepts her destiny. The Terminator learns to sacrifice. Matt learns to be a hero the John McClane way.
These aren't romance movies. Or family dramas. One emotional change is enough.
3. The action sequences make sense within the world that they occur (mostly). That is, the action sequences don't rely on deux ex machinas (the hand of God).
In the first Terminator movie, Reese can't bring future weaponry back with him from the future. He and Sarah have to rely on conventional means/weaponry to destroy The Terminator. Achieving this is plausible: exploding gasoline and a crushing device can be found in more than one location.
On the other hand, in the second movie (which I quite like) it seems rather too convenient that the nearest factory just happens to contain an open vat of molten steel.
However, even the latter example is not as egregious as human bodies which just magically deflect machine gun fire. In The Matrix, Neo can lift the helicopter because his mind can encompass the possibility. The audience is prepared for just such an occurrence. But that shouldn't happen in any other action film.
4. Set-ups are paid off.
I have written about why I think Die Hard is such a great film. To recap, every single issue/question/character is paid off at the end of the film. There is nothing superfluous, nothing unanswered.
Drama viewers can have their "but real life doesn't have any solutions, life isn't that tidy . . . " blah-de-blahs. Action movies are all about pay-off: the stronger the pay-offs, the better the film.
5. However, the pay-offs should not just be things blowing up.
Things just blowing up is boring. Plinkett has more than adequately explained why the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Star Wars movies suffer so remarkably in comparison to the 4th, 5th, and 6th (the original 1st, 2nd, and 3rd) despite the advancements in digital special effects They have flash and glam but no heart.
As I mention in my Matrix review, the one thing everyone seems to remember from that movie is the cascading machine-gun shells from the helicopter. Simple awesome images last longer than a million kung fu moves.
Which doesn't mean the director should get too arty. Action movies tell a story; that should always be the focus.
6. There is an intimate relationship underlying the film's action.
This can be a romance a la Kimble's memories of his wife in The Fugitive. Or Neo's destined relationship with Trinity in The Matrix.
Or it can be good old-fashioned "guy gets gal"; Reese's quiet enthrallment with Sarah Connor in The Terminator is a great example.
However, the relationship doesn't have to be romantic. McClane's discussions with Gruber in the first Die Hard are like a strong cable line underscoring the movie's action sequences (and were never reproduced to the same effect, no matter how hard the producers tried). Bourne's relationship with Pamela Landy (also by phone) in the second Bourne movie is another great example. McClane's relationship with Matt in Die Hard 4 is a great non-phone example.
7. There's no message or, if there is, it stays in the background.
If you want a MESSAGE, read an editorial. Good fiction delivers its messages through story. Good action, especially, never allows the message to dictate its conclusions or overwhelm its narrative.
One reason I like Iron Man is that although Tony Stark gains a "soul" (or a "heart" as Pepper puts it) when he sees his weapons being misused, his reaction is not to retire to the country, foreswear technology, and start a farm. His solution is to build better technology and take sole responsibility for his misused weapons. This may not satisfy War is Bad advocates, but it sure makes a lot of sense in terms of Tony Stark's personality.
8. There's an adequate villain.
The villain doesn't have to be the most interesting character that ever leered his/her way on film, but a strong villain does give umph to the protagonist's journey. Part of this is the role; part is the actor. I consider Robert Patrick a great (even witty) villainous robot; I found Kristanna Loken (T3) a big bore (Schwarzenegger's Terminator in the first movie is less a villain and more an introduction to a concept). From the Die Hard films, Alan Rickman stands out a mile.
I will settle for one-dimensional heroes (Stane in Iron Man) as long as they don't demand too much screen time. However, in general, I do find the hero's alter-ego or protagonist (Landry, Gerard) more interesting than the straight villain. Pirates owes a great deal of its fun to the noble antagonist (played by the very funny Jack Davenport) on the one hand and the ruffian antagonist (Geoffrey Rush) on the other.
Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith gets his own category.
Kate's List of Good and Great Action Films
Not all my preferred action films meet all my criteria, but most meet most of them.
Die Hard
Die Hard 4: Live Free or Die Hard
Bourne Identity
Bourne Supremacy
The Hunt for Red October (in general, I don't much enjoy spy movies รก la Clancy and James Bond, but I like this one)
The Fugitive
Independence Day (no, it doesn't meet most of my criteria, but it's so much gosh darn fun; likewise . . .)
Pirates of the Caribbean (first movie only)
Men in Black*
The Matrix*
Iron Man*
The Terminator*
The Terminator 2*(the theatrical version FIRST)
*I place the last five in action rather than sci-fi/fantasy/superhero genres. Batman Begins is a superhero movie; Ironman is an action movie. The difference, I would say, is the focus on character development. Batman Begins is about Bruce Wayne; Ironman is about Ironman (who happens to be Tony Stark). Likewise, Men in Black is about J (Will Smith), but it is about J as J (more than J as a police officer or individual).
While going through possible action films, I realized that my definition is fairly specific. Witness is suspense/drama; Raiders of the Lost Ark is action. I also realized that I'm far more choosy with action films than I am with any other genre! Go figure!!
1. The hero or heroine is a thinker as well as a fighter.
For example, both Jason Bourne and Tony Stark, although physically adept and more than willing to utilize weapons when necessary, are primarily thinking-men. They problem-solve rather than just react. In fact, in some of my favorites, such The Fugitive, the hero doesn't even fight: Dr. Richard Kimble is entirely a thinking-man (but then, of course, Deputy Marshal Gerard does all the shooting).
2. There is one main character arc.
Sarah Connor accepts her destiny. The Terminator learns to sacrifice. Matt learns to be a hero the John McClane way.
These aren't romance movies. Or family dramas. One emotional change is enough.
3. The action sequences make sense within the world that they occur (mostly). That is, the action sequences don't rely on deux ex machinas (the hand of God).
In the first Terminator movie, Reese can't bring future weaponry back with him from the future. He and Sarah have to rely on conventional means/weaponry to destroy The Terminator. Achieving this is plausible: exploding gasoline and a crushing device can be found in more than one location.
On the other hand, in the second movie (which I quite like) it seems rather too convenient that the nearest factory just happens to contain an open vat of molten steel.
However, even the latter example is not as egregious as human bodies which just magically deflect machine gun fire. In The Matrix, Neo can lift the helicopter because his mind can encompass the possibility. The audience is prepared for just such an occurrence. But that shouldn't happen in any other action film.
4. Set-ups are paid off.
I have written about why I think Die Hard is such a great film. To recap, every single issue/question/character is paid off at the end of the film. There is nothing superfluous, nothing unanswered.
Drama viewers can have their "but real life doesn't have any solutions, life isn't that tidy . . . " blah-de-blahs. Action movies are all about pay-off: the stronger the pay-offs, the better the film.
5. However, the pay-offs should not just be things blowing up.
Things just blowing up is boring. Plinkett has more than adequately explained why the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Star Wars movies suffer so remarkably in comparison to the 4th, 5th, and 6th (the original 1st, 2nd, and 3rd) despite the advancements in digital special effects They have flash and glam but no heart.
As I mention in my Matrix review, the one thing everyone seems to remember from that movie is the cascading machine-gun shells from the helicopter. Simple awesome images last longer than a million kung fu moves.
Which doesn't mean the director should get too arty. Action movies tell a story; that should always be the focus.
6. There is an intimate relationship underlying the film's action.
This can be a romance a la Kimble's memories of his wife in The Fugitive. Or Neo's destined relationship with Trinity in The Matrix.
Or it can be good old-fashioned "guy gets gal"; Reese's quiet enthrallment with Sarah Connor in The Terminator is a great example.
However, the relationship doesn't have to be romantic. McClane's discussions with Gruber in the first Die Hard are like a strong cable line underscoring the movie's action sequences (and were never reproduced to the same effect, no matter how hard the producers tried). Bourne's relationship with Pamela Landy (also by phone) in the second Bourne movie is another great example. McClane's relationship with Matt in Die Hard 4 is a great non-phone example.
7. There's no message or, if there is, it stays in the background.
If you want a MESSAGE, read an editorial. Good fiction delivers its messages through story. Good action, especially, never allows the message to dictate its conclusions or overwhelm its narrative.
One reason I like Iron Man is that although Tony Stark gains a "soul" (or a "heart" as Pepper puts it) when he sees his weapons being misused, his reaction is not to retire to the country, foreswear technology, and start a farm. His solution is to build better technology and take sole responsibility for his misused weapons. This may not satisfy War is Bad advocates, but it sure makes a lot of sense in terms of Tony Stark's personality.
8. There's an adequate villain.
The villain doesn't have to be the most interesting character that ever leered his/her way on film, but a strong villain does give umph to the protagonist's journey. Part of this is the role; part is the actor. I consider Robert Patrick a great (even witty) villainous robot; I found Kristanna Loken (T3) a big bore (Schwarzenegger's Terminator in the first movie is less a villain and more an introduction to a concept). From the Die Hard films, Alan Rickman stands out a mile.
I will settle for one-dimensional heroes (Stane in Iron Man) as long as they don't demand too much screen time. However, in general, I do find the hero's alter-ego or protagonist (Landry, Gerard) more interesting than the straight villain. Pirates owes a great deal of its fun to the noble antagonist (played by the very funny Jack Davenport) on the one hand and the ruffian antagonist (Geoffrey Rush) on the other.
Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith gets his own category.
Kate's List of Good and Great Action Films
Not all my preferred action films meet all my criteria, but most meet most of them.
Die Hard
Die Hard 4: Live Free or Die Hard
Bourne Identity
Bourne Supremacy
The Hunt for Red October (in general, I don't much enjoy spy movies รก la Clancy and James Bond, but I like this one)
The Fugitive
Independence Day (no, it doesn't meet most of my criteria, but it's so much gosh darn fun; likewise . . .)
Pirates of the Caribbean (first movie only)
Men in Black*
The Matrix*
Iron Man*
The Terminator*
The Terminator 2*(the theatrical version FIRST)
*I place the last five in action rather than sci-fi/fantasy/superhero genres. Batman Begins is a superhero movie; Ironman is an action movie. The difference, I would say, is the focus on character development. Batman Begins is about Bruce Wayne; Ironman is about Ironman (who happens to be Tony Stark). Likewise, Men in Black is about J (Will Smith), but it is about J as J (more than J as a police officer or individual).
While going through possible action films, I realized that my definition is fairly specific. Witness is suspense/drama; Raiders of the Lost Ark is action. I also realized that I'm far more choosy with action films than I am with any other genre! Go figure!!
Monday, August 15, 2011
The Terminator Review: First Time Viewing!
So, I finally saw The Terminator, and to be honest, I liked it best out of the three, including the second (I realize there are more, but I've focused on the Schwarzenegger films). I think this is because, out of the three, it rambles the least. There's one story, one main character arc. This is action the way it should be!
To be fair, I am going to re-watch Terminator 2 which, far more than Terminator 3, gives homage to the first movie, and I'm going to watch the theater release, not the director's cut.
Here's the thing about Cameron: when he can get away with it, he rambles. Take Titanic. The roaming-the-bowels-of-the-ship sequences go on FOREVER. I like action sequences, but they have to be tight, short, and make sense. Action sequences that go on and on and on bore me to death.
So I was pleasantly surprised with The Terminator because of how quickly the action sequences are resolved. I admit, I wandered away at the end because I thought--a la Terminator 2--that the factory sequence would go on for ten minutes or so. And I had to rewind!
I was also pleasantly surprised by how much sci-fi background there is. I always had this idea that The Terminator was pure horror: big-scary-machine; RUN, good guys, RUN; more big-scary-machine; RUN, RUN, RUN! The back-flashes are well-done and illuminating (more on these later).
I'd also gotten the idea that the first movie was old-fashioned horror--you know, where the girl is blond and stupid and can't do anything. When Terminator 2 came out, reviewers made a big deal about Linda Hamilton's new look/role--G.I. Jane-ish.
But, actually, she undergoes a very believable arc in the first movie from innocent, normal, everyday young woman to "the legend" that Kyle believes her to be. The arc also gives pathos to her downward spiral at the beginning of Terminator 2: Kyle will always be the one guy who had her back, and no guy will ever live up to him.
Okay, here are my beefs: Cameron has a tendency to establish interesting characters and then kill them off without a shrug instead of using easy and far more interesting pay-offs. The two police officers at the beginning are really interesting; I would have liked to see them play bigger roles. For example, they could have decided to free Kyle when the Terminator showed up--easy pay-off.
Kyle Reese is by far the most interesting person in the film, especially with the flash-backs. Why weren't the flash-backs paid off? I think the movie should have ended with another flash-back: right after Sarah leaves the factory, we flash-back to Kyle meeting the grown-up John Connor. John Connor has something (memento) that indicates to the audience that Kyle is his father (this is a memento Kyle would obviously had to have picked up when he first showed up in the 80's, something he later gives to Sarah). John asks Kyle again if he wants to go back; Kyle says, "Yes." End of movie. The audience is left going, "Oh, wow, hey, did you figure it out?"
(*I realize the photo kind of does this, but I think the connection could be stronger.)
As it ends now, Kyle's death is well-done (being the worst of the many losses Sarah suffers, preparing us for her kamikaze behavior in the second movie), but his story should have been completed.
Whatever its minor flaws, the movie definitely has presence. The mythology may not have been fully fleshed-out, but the material is there. I'm not surprised they made another!
And I finally get the line, "I'll be back." It is a way better line in the movie than I've ever heard it quoted. In the movie, the Terminator doesn't mean it as a threat, and Schwarzenegger doesn't say it that way. He is being completely literal: "I'll be back." It just sounds scary because he is so dead-pan (and has that accent).
To be fair, I am going to re-watch Terminator 2 which, far more than Terminator 3, gives homage to the first movie, and I'm going to watch the theater release, not the director's cut.
Here's the thing about Cameron: when he can get away with it, he rambles. Take Titanic. The roaming-the-bowels-of-the-ship sequences go on FOREVER. I like action sequences, but they have to be tight, short, and make sense. Action sequences that go on and on and on bore me to death.
So I was pleasantly surprised with The Terminator because of how quickly the action sequences are resolved. I admit, I wandered away at the end because I thought--a la Terminator 2--that the factory sequence would go on for ten minutes or so. And I had to rewind!
I was also pleasantly surprised by how much sci-fi background there is. I always had this idea that The Terminator was pure horror: big-scary-machine; RUN, good guys, RUN; more big-scary-machine; RUN, RUN, RUN! The back-flashes are well-done and illuminating (more on these later).
I'd also gotten the idea that the first movie was old-fashioned horror--you know, where the girl is blond and stupid and can't do anything. When Terminator 2 came out, reviewers made a big deal about Linda Hamilton's new look/role--G.I. Jane-ish.
But, actually, she undergoes a very believable arc in the first movie from innocent, normal, everyday young woman to "the legend" that Kyle believes her to be. The arc also gives pathos to her downward spiral at the beginning of Terminator 2: Kyle will always be the one guy who had her back, and no guy will ever live up to him.
Okay, here are my beefs: Cameron has a tendency to establish interesting characters and then kill them off without a shrug instead of using easy and far more interesting pay-offs. The two police officers at the beginning are really interesting; I would have liked to see them play bigger roles. For example, they could have decided to free Kyle when the Terminator showed up--easy pay-off.
Kyle Reese is by far the most interesting person in the film, especially with the flash-backs. Why weren't the flash-backs paid off? I think the movie should have ended with another flash-back: right after Sarah leaves the factory, we flash-back to Kyle meeting the grown-up John Connor. John Connor has something (memento) that indicates to the audience that Kyle is his father (this is a memento Kyle would obviously had to have picked up when he first showed up in the 80's, something he later gives to Sarah). John asks Kyle again if he wants to go back; Kyle says, "Yes." End of movie. The audience is left going, "Oh, wow, hey, did you figure it out?"
(*I realize the photo kind of does this, but I think the connection could be stronger.)
As it ends now, Kyle's death is well-done (being the worst of the many losses Sarah suffers, preparing us for her kamikaze behavior in the second movie), but his story should have been completed.
Whatever its minor flaws, the movie definitely has presence. The mythology may not have been fully fleshed-out, but the material is there. I'm not surprised they made another!
And I finally get the line, "I'll be back." It is a way better line in the movie than I've ever heard it quoted. In the movie, the Terminator doesn't mean it as a threat, and Schwarzenegger doesn't say it that way. He is being completely literal: "I'll be back." It just sounds scary because he is so dead-pan (and has that accent).
Friday, August 5, 2011
The Classic James Blish
When I was growing up, one of my brothers (or several) owned a number of James Blish's Star Trek adaptations (short stories based on Classic Trek scripts). I had been exposed to the show before I borrowed the books (I was probably around 10 years old). At the time, I was not impressed. I was expecting something more along the lines of Diane Duane's Star Trek books which use third-person limited and deliver a far amount of psychology alongside good action narratives. (In fact, Duane is just about the only Star Trek writer I trust. I feel like she captures the characters' personalities and doesn't play havoc with either the ethics or the science of the Trek universe.)
However, recently I pick up a few Blish adaptations (Star Treks 1, 2, 3 and 4) at the local library, and I have been seriously impressed by his writing.
Here's why:
1. He doesn't retell the scripts.
Many writers (and students writing about literature) do this. They don't summarize the story in their heads and then retell it in the order that makes sense; they start at point A and proceed through points B, C, and D, even if C is a back-flash and should have been dealt with first. This also happens quite often on sites like the Internet Movie Database. Some people know how to summarize the essence of an episode. Some people only know how to tell you what happened in the order they saw it. I've read summaries on IMDB that made an episode sound FAR more convoluted than it actually was.
Blish is a master at providing the essence. He doesn't retell every incident in the episode, only the ones that hold the narrative together.
2. Blish retains (mostly) a single point of view.
In most of the stories I've read, he uses Kirk's point of view. His voice is third-person omniscient, so he can dive into other people's heads if he wants/needs, but he rarely strays too far from Kirk's mind. Consequently, we are spared a lot of "red-shirt" deaths, which is all to the good, frankly.
Out-of-Kirk's-experience events are summarized in tight paragraphs of exposition. This doesn't mean the writing is all exposition. Most of it is dialog between Kirk and others. Impressively, the dialog doesn't have that taken-directly-from-a-script sound ("There is a monster on the planet," Kirk said. "We must go get it," Spock said. "What do you want me to do, sir?" the red-shirt said.). Blish knew how to write dialog himself, so his dialog-from-the-script has a natural feel/flow. (Writing for the camera truly is different from writing for a short story/novel.)
3. Blish knows how to start a story.
To be honest, I like reading his beginnings more than anything else. Here are some samples:
However, recently I pick up a few Blish adaptations (Star Treks 1, 2, 3 and 4) at the local library, and I have been seriously impressed by his writing.
Here's why:
1. He doesn't retell the scripts.
Many writers (and students writing about literature) do this. They don't summarize the story in their heads and then retell it in the order that makes sense; they start at point A and proceed through points B, C, and D, even if C is a back-flash and should have been dealt with first. This also happens quite often on sites like the Internet Movie Database. Some people know how to summarize the essence of an episode. Some people only know how to tell you what happened in the order they saw it. I've read summaries on IMDB that made an episode sound FAR more convoluted than it actually was.
Blish is a master at providing the essence. He doesn't retell every incident in the episode, only the ones that hold the narrative together.
2. Blish retains (mostly) a single point of view.
In most of the stories I've read, he uses Kirk's point of view. His voice is third-person omniscient, so he can dive into other people's heads if he wants/needs, but he rarely strays too far from Kirk's mind. Consequently, we are spared a lot of "red-shirt" deaths, which is all to the good, frankly.
Out-of-Kirk's-experience events are summarized in tight paragraphs of exposition. This doesn't mean the writing is all exposition. Most of it is dialog between Kirk and others. Impressively, the dialog doesn't have that taken-directly-from-a-script sound ("There is a monster on the planet," Kirk said. "We must go get it," Spock said. "What do you want me to do, sir?" the red-shirt said.). Blish knew how to write dialog himself, so his dialog-from-the-script has a natural feel/flow. (Writing for the camera truly is different from writing for a short story/novel.)
3. Blish knows how to start a story.
To be honest, I like reading his beginnings more than anything else. Here are some samples:
Simon van Gelder came aboard the Enterprise from the Tantalus Penal Colony via transporter, inside a box addressed to the Bureau of Penology in Stockholm--a desperate measure, but not a particularly intelligent one, as was inevitable under the circumstances. ("Dagger of the Mind")Blish deserves his place as the first adapter of Star Trek stories. And for straight action story-telling, he definitely deserves to be read and emulated!
The Enterprise weathered the ion storm somehow, but one man was dead, and damage to the ship was considerable. ("Court Martial")
Two drops of cordrazine can save a man's life. Ten drops of that unpredictable drug will sometimes kill. When a defective hypospray went off in McCoy's hand, a hundred times that amount was pumped into his body in a split second. ("The City on the Edge of Forever")
The star was very old--as old as it is possible for a star to be, a first-generation star, born when the present universe was born . . . It had become a black star . . . The Enterprise, on a rare trip back toward the Sol sector and Earth, hit the black star traveling at warp factor four--sixty-four times the speed of light. ("Tomorrow is Yesterday")
Monday, August 1, 2011
Stargate: Season 4 Review
I continue my review of Stargate episodes (I didn't forget!) with references to The Matrix, amnesia, the purpose of sci-fi villains, and Star Trek's strengths and weaknesses.
Episode #1: Small Victories--Part two of Season 3 season ender. It is somewhat more interesting than the first part. Still, bugs . . . yawn. I really do need a face to my villains, even if the villains are mechanical. Take The Matrix: so, the villains are the machines or whatever, but the villains' representative still wears a human face and has human emotions.
Episode #2: The Other Side--One of Stargate's best episodes, starring the excellent Rene Auberjonois. Imagine that aliens finally contact us; they turned out to be human and . . . a bunch of Nazis. "The Other Side" is a really interesting episode about intentions and perceptions and contains some good argument scenes between Daniel and Jack.
Episode #3: Upgrades--Okay episode that introduces Tok'ra chick Anise played by Vanessa Angel. Several years ago, I was told that Anise was supposed to be Stargate's 7-of-9 (this was after 7-of-9 became really big news). If so, it didn't really work; the women on Stargate dress way too comfortably for Anise's uniform to make much sense.
Episode #4: Crossroads--Pretty good episode with Sela Ward look-a-like Musetta Vander. Turns out, Vander was on Buffy! There must be a I-will-do-fantasy-and-sci-fi circuit amongst Hollywood actors. I've always been proud of Frasier actors Kelsey Grammar and Bebe Neuwirth for willingly doing Star Trek: Next Generation episodes despite their slots in "real life" drama shows.
Episode #5: Divide and Conquer--Good episode which, unfortunately, disposes of Martouf (JR Bourne). I guess the writers decided they'd done as much with this character as they could (although I like Martouf, I think they were right). The episode also refers to the ongoing but in no way intrusive romantic attachment between Carter and Jack. This isn't Bones-Booth romantic stuff; it's pretty low key. (But it's there. One minor problem with early seasons of Stargate: Atlantis is that Sheppard doesn't have a honey; personally, I think his honey should be Teyla: together, they would make the most laid-back couple in television history.)
Episode #6: Window of Opportunity--Probably the first episode of Stargate I ever saw. I began rewatching the show several years ago to find this particular episode. I finally did in Season 4! It is a time-loop episode, a la Groundhog Day. Very well done.
Episode #7: Watergate--Interesting idea; I always like episodes with underwater civilizations. However, despite the presence of Marina Sirtis (Star Trek: Next Generation), it's kind of boring.
Episode #8: The First Ones--Nice anthropological episode which adds more information to the Goa'uld mythology.
Episode #9: Scorched Earth--Okay episode that sets the needs of an unknown and bizarre alien race against the needs of a known and relatable alien race. Stargate does these types of episodes very well by creating tension without messaging: both positions have merit.
Episode #10: Beneath the Surface--Possibly my favorite Stargate episode ever! Our intrepid heroes have been sent to work in an underground city. Their memories have been manipulated; they don't know who they are and don't realize they know each other. Over the course of the episode, they remember who they become friends and work together to escape/solve the problem.
If I ever suffered from amnesia in reality, I'm sure it would be horrible. But literarily-speaking, it fascinates me. I think my fascination has to do with the elements of personality: who are we? Are we an accumulation of our experiences? Probably. But what happens when the experiences are gone? What is left? Do we become new people? Do we revert to a basic blueprint? Do we perceive ourselves differently and, if so, how much does that affect how others perceive us?
Episode #11: Point of No Return--Cute episode that is actually funnier after a few viewings. Another of Teal'c's "likes" is presented in this episode. He likes vibrating, hotel beds. (We later learn that he also likes Star Wars and toy laser guns.)
Episode #12: Tangent--Pretty good Apollo 13-like episode. And it's always nice to see Carmen Argenziano (although I now thoroughly associate him with House; he is the older doctor in the fourth season of House, the one who never actually graduated from medical school and is too much like House to be chosen).
Episode #13: The Curse--Okay episode introducing another bad Goa'uld: Osiris. By the way, the chick playing Sarah, Anna-Louise Plowman, is married to Toby Stephens. (As I continue my hobby of identifying British and American actors in bit parts!)
Episode #14: The Serpent's Venom--One of Stargate's military strategy episodes. Teal'c gets tortured. There's a bomb. It's kind of boring.
Episode #15: Chain Reaction--This is one of those episodes where the problem has zero impact unless the viewer is already invested in the show/characters. This kind of thing is allowable once a show gathers a fan-base, but it always makes me wince. It is also, as Jack would say, a "a cloak and dagger-y" episode which, in general, isn't really my cup of tea. But Maybourne shows up!
Episode #16: 2010--Neat episode that I reviewed for the Mike-Kate Video Club.
Episode #17: Absolute Power--A Michael Shanks-focused episode where he gets to go bad (but it's only a dream). This episode makes clear why the Goa'uld aren't dealt with diplomatically:
One smart thing that Stargate does is to make their villains completely villainous. The Wraith in Stargate: Atlantis have an ambiguous side—leading to the creation of the marvelously conflicted Michael played by Connor Trinneer—but their needs make them "givens" as enemies.
The Goa'uld are just bad (the ambiguity is supplied by the Tok'ra). This does two things: (1) it prevents Stargate having to apologize for being a military/warrior show; (2) it keeps Stargate mythic. In myth, although Hercules does in fact apologize for a lot of things, he doesn't apologize for being a fighter. Similarly, Stargate heroes don't apologize for saving the universe ("Oh, wait, maybe we should have tried to understand the creatures who want to put snakes in our bodies!") Jean-Luc Picard can do this kind of over-the-top diplomacy because he is Patrick Stewart and everything Patrick Stewart does has a patina of gravitas. But nobody else should do it in sci-fi.
The Stargate writers demonstrate their wisdom and skill again in this episode. They resolve another of Daniel's story arcs. Instead of forcing us to watch all 10 seasons of Stargate to find the Harcesis, they bring him up, deal with him, and dispose of him in one episode. Kudos!
Episode #18: The Light--One of my favorites although I'm not sure why. I don't really like angst, but I guess I like mental anguish, such as Daniel's breakdown at his apartment. There is also a mystery that needs to be solved. (As mentioned in my review of Season 3, Michael Shanks tends to be the main character in episodes that are more archaeology/team-oriented as opposed to battle-oriented. I prefer the latter to the former, so I tend to refer to Daniel/Shanks a lot.)
Episode #19: Prodigy--Introduction of that fantastic "4'9" fighting machine" Hailey (Elizabeth Rosen) who shows up in the later episode "Proving Ground" with the excellent Courtenay Stevens as Lieutenant Elliott.
Episode #20: Entity--Supercomputer-as-antagonist is about as boring to me as mechanical bugs-as- antagonist. And I just can't buy the whole "consciousness can be transferred in and out of a computer" thing. Oh, well, I guess these episodes have to be done. The script does have some nice moments that highlight the differences between Daniel and Jack/Teal'c.
Episode #21: Double Jeopardy--This is quite a nice pay-off to the robot story ("Tin Man" in Season 1) and to the Cronus & Teal'c story. One downside: the writers really should have said what happened to the de-activated robots at the end, but I guess they were worried the information would create too many problems for future episodes. They didn't want the viewers expecting the robots to show up every other episode!
This is all to say, Stargate writers are even more fanatical than Star Trek writers about not leaving open-endings. On the one hand, as in Star Trek--especially Star Trek: Voyager--this sometimes strains one's credulity. On the other hand, I love single-story episodes and I really admire how completely cavalier Stargate is (even more than Star Trek) about avoiding soap-opera tangents. Their attitude is "this will cause us problems later; okay, let's just not deal with it!" There's something enormously refreshing about this type of approach.
Sidenote: The Battlestar Galactica folks were also heavily influenced by Star Trek; in fact, some of them worked for the Star Trek franchise. However, unlike the Stargate people, who never lost a healthy respect for Star Trek's fame, the Battlestar Galactica folks acted like whiny rebellious teenagers: Oh, we are so NOT going to do what Star Trek did! Nah nah nah.
This was a major throwing-out-babies-with-bathwater mistake. Changing the format is one thing. Going against it is just stupid.
Although . . .
Episode #22: Exodus--This episode reminds me of David Gerrold's analysis of Star Trek's weaknesses in his book The Making of Star Trek. David Gerrold points out that "Kirk in danger" episodes get tedious pretty fast (Kirk is in danger from the supercomputer! Kirk is in danger from the evil body-less psychopath! Kirk is in danger from the evil green monster-thing!).
Good drama (even action drama, I would argue) is better when it is about making decisions. Die Hard is a great action movie because Bruce Willis can't just blow things up; he has to make decisions about which course of action to take. Actually, he has to make the decision to get involved which influences how he gets involved.
Stargate military strategy episodes, unfortunately, have a tendency to focus on "the one thing that will save the earth!" We have to kill a bunch of mechanical bug! We have to blow up a sun! We have to . . .
And it gets old. It is much more interesting when someone has to make a decision. So, for example, in this season, my favorites almost all involve making a decision of some kind:
Episode #1: Small Victories--Part two of Season 3 season ender. It is somewhat more interesting than the first part. Still, bugs . . . yawn. I really do need a face to my villains, even if the villains are mechanical. Take The Matrix: so, the villains are the machines or whatever, but the villains' representative still wears a human face and has human emotions.
Episode #2: The Other Side--One of Stargate's best episodes, starring the excellent Rene Auberjonois. Imagine that aliens finally contact us; they turned out to be human and . . . a bunch of Nazis. "The Other Side" is a really interesting episode about intentions and perceptions and contains some good argument scenes between Daniel and Jack.
Episode #3: Upgrades--Okay episode that introduces Tok'ra chick Anise played by Vanessa Angel. Several years ago, I was told that Anise was supposed to be Stargate's 7-of-9 (this was after 7-of-9 became really big news). If so, it didn't really work; the women on Stargate dress way too comfortably for Anise's uniform to make much sense.
Episode #4: Crossroads--Pretty good episode with Sela Ward look-a-like Musetta Vander. Turns out, Vander was on Buffy! There must be a I-will-do-fantasy-and-sci-fi circuit amongst Hollywood actors. I've always been proud of Frasier actors Kelsey Grammar and Bebe Neuwirth for willingly doing Star Trek: Next Generation episodes despite their slots in "real life" drama shows.
Episode #5: Divide and Conquer--Good episode which, unfortunately, disposes of Martouf (JR Bourne). I guess the writers decided they'd done as much with this character as they could (although I like Martouf, I think they were right). The episode also refers to the ongoing but in no way intrusive romantic attachment between Carter and Jack. This isn't Bones-Booth romantic stuff; it's pretty low key. (But it's there. One minor problem with early seasons of Stargate: Atlantis is that Sheppard doesn't have a honey; personally, I think his honey should be Teyla: together, they would make the most laid-back couple in television history.)
Episode #6: Window of Opportunity--Probably the first episode of Stargate I ever saw. I began rewatching the show several years ago to find this particular episode. I finally did in Season 4! It is a time-loop episode, a la Groundhog Day. Very well done.
Episode #7: Watergate--Interesting idea; I always like episodes with underwater civilizations. However, despite the presence of Marina Sirtis (Star Trek: Next Generation), it's kind of boring.
Episode #8: The First Ones--Nice anthropological episode which adds more information to the Goa'uld mythology.
Episode #9: Scorched Earth--Okay episode that sets the needs of an unknown and bizarre alien race against the needs of a known and relatable alien race. Stargate does these types of episodes very well by creating tension without messaging: both positions have merit.
Episode #10: Beneath the Surface--Possibly my favorite Stargate episode ever! Our intrepid heroes have been sent to work in an underground city. Their memories have been manipulated; they don't know who they are and don't realize they know each other. Over the course of the episode, they remember who they become friends and work together to escape/solve the problem.
If I ever suffered from amnesia in reality, I'm sure it would be horrible. But literarily-speaking, it fascinates me. I think my fascination has to do with the elements of personality: who are we? Are we an accumulation of our experiences? Probably. But what happens when the experiences are gone? What is left? Do we become new people? Do we revert to a basic blueprint? Do we perceive ourselves differently and, if so, how much does that affect how others perceive us?
Episode #11: Point of No Return--Cute episode that is actually funnier after a few viewings. Another of Teal'c's "likes" is presented in this episode. He likes vibrating, hotel beds. (We later learn that he also likes Star Wars and toy laser guns.)
Episode #12: Tangent--Pretty good Apollo 13-like episode. And it's always nice to see Carmen Argenziano (although I now thoroughly associate him with House; he is the older doctor in the fourth season of House, the one who never actually graduated from medical school and is too much like House to be chosen).
Episode #13: The Curse--Okay episode introducing another bad Goa'uld: Osiris. By the way, the chick playing Sarah, Anna-Louise Plowman, is married to Toby Stephens. (As I continue my hobby of identifying British and American actors in bit parts!)
Episode #14: The Serpent's Venom--One of Stargate's military strategy episodes. Teal'c gets tortured. There's a bomb. It's kind of boring.
Episode #15: Chain Reaction--This is one of those episodes where the problem has zero impact unless the viewer is already invested in the show/characters. This kind of thing is allowable once a show gathers a fan-base, but it always makes me wince. It is also, as Jack would say, a "a cloak and dagger-y" episode which, in general, isn't really my cup of tea. But Maybourne shows up!
Episode #16: 2010--Neat episode that I reviewed for the Mike-Kate Video Club.
Episode #17: Absolute Power--A Michael Shanks-focused episode where he gets to go bad (but it's only a dream). This episode makes clear why the Goa'uld aren't dealt with diplomatically:
One smart thing that Stargate does is to make their villains completely villainous. The Wraith in Stargate: Atlantis have an ambiguous side—leading to the creation of the marvelously conflicted Michael played by Connor Trinneer—but their needs make them "givens" as enemies.
The Goa'uld are just bad (the ambiguity is supplied by the Tok'ra). This does two things: (1) it prevents Stargate having to apologize for being a military/warrior show; (2) it keeps Stargate mythic. In myth, although Hercules does in fact apologize for a lot of things, he doesn't apologize for being a fighter. Similarly, Stargate heroes don't apologize for saving the universe ("Oh, wait, maybe we should have tried to understand the creatures who want to put snakes in our bodies!") Jean-Luc Picard can do this kind of over-the-top diplomacy because he is Patrick Stewart and everything Patrick Stewart does has a patina of gravitas. But nobody else should do it in sci-fi.
The Stargate writers demonstrate their wisdom and skill again in this episode. They resolve another of Daniel's story arcs. Instead of forcing us to watch all 10 seasons of Stargate to find the Harcesis, they bring him up, deal with him, and dispose of him in one episode. Kudos!
Episode #18: The Light--One of my favorites although I'm not sure why. I don't really like angst, but I guess I like mental anguish, such as Daniel's breakdown at his apartment. There is also a mystery that needs to be solved. (As mentioned in my review of Season 3, Michael Shanks tends to be the main character in episodes that are more archaeology/team-oriented as opposed to battle-oriented. I prefer the latter to the former, so I tend to refer to Daniel/Shanks a lot.)
Episode #19: Prodigy--Introduction of that fantastic "4'9" fighting machine" Hailey (Elizabeth Rosen) who shows up in the later episode "Proving Ground" with the excellent Courtenay Stevens as Lieutenant Elliott.
Episode #20: Entity--Supercomputer-as-antagonist is about as boring to me as mechanical bugs-as- antagonist. And I just can't buy the whole "consciousness can be transferred in and out of a computer" thing. Oh, well, I guess these episodes have to be done. The script does have some nice moments that highlight the differences between Daniel and Jack/Teal'c.
Episode #21: Double Jeopardy--This is quite a nice pay-off to the robot story ("Tin Man" in Season 1) and to the Cronus & Teal'c story. One downside: the writers really should have said what happened to the de-activated robots at the end, but I guess they were worried the information would create too many problems for future episodes. They didn't want the viewers expecting the robots to show up every other episode!
This is all to say, Stargate writers are even more fanatical than Star Trek writers about not leaving open-endings. On the one hand, as in Star Trek--especially Star Trek: Voyager--this sometimes strains one's credulity. On the other hand, I love single-story episodes and I really admire how completely cavalier Stargate is (even more than Star Trek) about avoiding soap-opera tangents. Their attitude is "this will cause us problems later; okay, let's just not deal with it!" There's something enormously refreshing about this type of approach.
Sidenote: The Battlestar Galactica folks were also heavily influenced by Star Trek; in fact, some of them worked for the Star Trek franchise. However, unlike the Stargate people, who never lost a healthy respect for Star Trek's fame, the Battlestar Galactica folks acted like whiny rebellious teenagers: Oh, we are so NOT going to do what Star Trek did! Nah nah nah.
This was a major throwing-out-babies-with-bathwater mistake. Changing the format is one thing. Going against it is just stupid.
Although . . .
Episode #22: Exodus--This episode reminds me of David Gerrold's analysis of Star Trek's weaknesses in his book The Making of Star Trek. David Gerrold points out that "Kirk in danger" episodes get tedious pretty fast (Kirk is in danger from the supercomputer! Kirk is in danger from the evil body-less psychopath! Kirk is in danger from the evil green monster-thing!).
Good drama (even action drama, I would argue) is better when it is about making decisions. Die Hard is a great action movie because Bruce Willis can't just blow things up; he has to make decisions about which course of action to take. Actually, he has to make the decision to get involved which influences how he gets involved.
Stargate military strategy episodes, unfortunately, have a tendency to focus on "the one thing that will save the earth!" We have to kill a bunch of mechanical bug! We have to blow up a sun! We have to . . .
And it gets old. It is much more interesting when someone has to make a decision. So, for example, in this season, my favorites almost all involve making a decision of some kind:
- "Other Side"--Jack makes a decision about who to trust when he sees how Alar treats Teal'c.
- "Window of Opportunity"--the archaeologist makes a decision when Jack reveals to him how he feels about his own child's death.
- "Beneath the Surface"--the team make the decision to trust each other and care about something bigger than their current circumstances.
- "2010"--okay, this is a "must do one thing to save the earth!" episode. Sci-fi action/drama shows are allowed a few plus the "one thing" is pretty interesting.
- "Absolute Power"--Daniel makes a decision about what to do with the Harcesis (the potential for unlimited knowledge).
- "The Light"--the boy makes a decision to trust Jack and turn off the machine.
- "Prodigy"--Jack makes a decision about how the team should escape/deal with the attacking aliens. (The action sequences are directly impacted by Jack's decision; the decision isn't simply one of a series of actions.)