• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

paramount stole it .........

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bakana:
I think the problem the Anticlimactic camp has is that they Expected something.
And that what they Got was totally different.

For people who Like their fiction Predictable, it's a letdown.

For those of us who Appreciate fiction that surprises us and goes down the "road less traveled", it was a great plot twist.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also think it was anticlimactic. That does not mean it was a let down. Why should it? All it means is, everything built up to what looks like a climax, then skews off in a different direction than expected. To me, that was a 'good plot twist', but not the 'climax'that the story *appeared* to be about to show. Like a boxer's jab-jab-feint-*BAM* with the other fist.



------------------
Darkwing
Let's..get..dangerous
 
Darkwing said:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Well, the way I read it (in ST:Creator, IIRC), Gene pitched ST, they told him they'd think about it, then called him to say 'no thanks', and all of a sudden, LIS appeared, and the book made it sound like Roddenberry was pretty ticked off, and felt that they had led him on, made notes, then rushed his ideas of to Irwin.
What the facts are, I don't know, as I wasn't there, and we can't ask Gene anymore.
Is Irwin still alive?
Anyway, that was *my* understanding, and I'm sure others perceive it that way too.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, this is dealt with in "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry from 1968.
What annoyed Roddenberry was NOT that CBS (to whom he was pitching Star Trek) stole his Star Trek idea and turned it into Lost in Space. He felt that CBS took all his research into how to produce a weekly SF series (SFX, budgeting concerns, astronomical research, what sort of sets are required, how do you build them, what does a ficitonal spaceship look like, what kind of engines, how do you show all that on the screen cheaply but realistically) and gave it to the Lost in Space team, which had already been sold to CBS.

In fact, the last words the CBS execs are reported to have said to Roddenberry at the meeting was (not a direct quote, but the general gist), "Thanks for your submission, but we already have Lost in Space." Roddenberry took this to mean, "we already have one sci-fi show, why would we want another," and Roddenberry inferred that instead of being genuinly interested in his pitch, they were just mining him for info.

I don't think it's ever been clearly established that CBS actually did anything with the information gleaned from Roddenberry (and after watching the two shows, one can only believe if CBS really used Roddenberry's research, it was to do the exact opposite of everything that Roddenberry said
smile.gif
). But it was certainly Roddenebrry's belief that he had been had. (And considering Roddenberry's penchant for taking credit for other people's ideas, it's all very ironic.)


------------------
"No matter where you go, there you are."
-- B. Banzai

[This message has been edited by spuzzum (edited January 17, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by spuzzum (edited January 17, 2002).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Oh really? You didn't provide any. Both GKarsEye and I provided the definition of climax and I even supported my argument with an example. You haven't provided any support for your argument.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't aware that you didn't know what the definition of anticlimatic was? My bad.

an·ti·cli·mac·tic: (adj.)
of, relating to, or marked by anticlimax

an·ti·cli·max : (noun)
1 : the usually sudden transition in discourse from a significant idea to a trivial or ludicrous idea; also : an instance of this transition
2 : an event (typically at the end of a series) that is strikingly less important than what has preceded it

Now that the definitions are out of the way, my support (which is odd in and of itself, since I could care less whether you agree with me or not) is the same as what I said earlier -- JMS meticulously crafted this arc from season one, it snowballed until it reached this critical point where you've got these massive fleets at a standoff, and its resolved essentially because one man told his parents that he's able to take care of himself. Not altogether different from the situation in DS9 where a big fleet of ships on the other end of the wormhole disappear because one man told his parents that if they want to stick their noses in his business they they ought to do something to help.

In both cases, you have an arc that leads up to an ultimate showdown and soemthing that took several seasons to build up is simply cast aside by the comments of a single character.

Now somebody somewhere said that I was advocating an all out war and that I must be an idiot or something because B5 wasn't about big explosions... yadda, yadda, yadda.

Did I say that? In fact, what in this thread even gave you the idea that I had a problem with what I saw? Because I said it was anticlimatic? IT WAS! Because I boiled the whole thing down to getting rid of one's parents? IT WAS! In the cases of both DS9 and B5, you have an event that was strikingly less important than what preceeded it or, if you like, a sudden transition from something very important (D-Day, apocalypse, total destruction) to something trivial (like talking to your parents).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Oh, one last thing. We aren't attacking you or being defensive because you see something differently. We're debating with you. You provided a debatable topic, we went with it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's possible to debate without calling the other guy's position as "bitching." That' an attack... I should know because I've done enough of it. And second of all, I didn't provide a debate topic. I didn't start this thread at all -- that I can remember. I was actually having a debate with someone about the similarities and differences of Sisko v. Sheridan, when he pointed out how anticlimatic the war arc was. I said it was no more anticlimatic than the conclusion of the Shadow War.

But even if I didn't actually provide the topic for debate, I'm more than happy to do so -- even though I'm clueless as to how we prove or disprove that something is anticlimatic.

~PT~

------------------
"Dawn's in trouble? Must be Tuesday." -- Buffy Summers, "Once More With Feeling."

[This message has been edited by PsionTen (edited January 17, 2002).]
 
I'll try this once more:

A climax is a literary term used to describe that point in the story where the conflict reaches a point of maximum tensions and the story undergoes major changes. Every story that's reasonably put together has a climax, the same way that every story has an introduction and an end.

To say that the resolution of the Shadow War was not a climax is not an opinion- it is incorrect. If it had been a big space battle, it would also be a climax. If it had ended in the Shadows wiping out all galactic civilisation, it would be a climax. And what actually happened was, indeed, a climax. The freakin' Shadow War ended. By definition, that is climactic.

If you want to say it was a poor climax, or a dissappointing one, or an unexpected one, then that is opinion.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
 
A climax is the highest point of dramatic tension "or" a major turning point in the action. Anticlimax is the usually sudden transition in discourse from a significant idea to a trivial or ludicrous idea; or an an event that is strikingly less important than what has preceded it. Even though you would think that the presence of one would mean the absence of the other, I'm not sure about that. Here, there was a high point to the War arc and then there was a sudden transition to the trival.


Whether or not you see it that way most certainly is a matter of opinion.



------------------
"Dawn's in trouble? Must be Tuesday." -- Buffy Summers, "Once More With Feeling."
 
Just to add one more log to the fire.

The way that both terms are typically used are for two entirely different things

Climax-- most often refurns to the structure which is pretty much unchangeable since almost all stories have some sort of a structire

Anticlimax-- most often refers to the resolution to a particular story. i.e, "that ending was anticlimatic."



------------------
"Dawn's in trouble? Must be Tuesday." -- Buffy Summers, "Once More With Feeling."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Here, there was a high point to the War arc and then there was a sudden transition to the trival.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here, I think, is the crux of the disagreement. I don't see the fact that a million-year-old cycle of war and destruction was ended, and that the Younger Races threw off the shackles of the First Ones and took control of their own destiny, as trivial.

Even the method by which this happened (which seems to be your real objection) is not as simple as you have repeatedly mistated it. The crises didn't end because of that one line from Sheridan. That was merely the last comment on a victory that had already been acheived.

The war was won because the manipulations of the Vorlons and Shadows were laid bare for all to see, and they were forced to confront their own failures as guardians. If Sheridan had simply met with them privately, told them "get lost" and they had, that would have been an anti-climax. This was the logical conclusion of everything that had gone before. Sheridan didn't kick the First Ones out - they left of their own free will after they were unmasked and shown to be the failures that they were.

This, not a space battle, is what JMS had been building towards from S1. The show was always concerned with the "childhood's end" theme, and the philosophical battle between the Vorlons and the Shadows - and its effect on the Younger Races.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Even the method by which this happened (which seems to be your real objection) is not as simple as you have repeatedly mistated it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that depends on your point-of-view, now doesn't it Joe? As JMS said, B5 was all about killing (or getting rid of) your parents, then this is the moment where the child tells the parents to get lost. And I also think that you're wrong on the impact it had.... The Drakh certainly believed that Sheridan and Delenn were to blame for the shadows leaving essentially because they told them too. Were there other elements involved too? Probably, maybe, kinda, who cares. The left after Sheridan's temper tantrum (which is probably how the first ones saw it) and therefore he gets the credit.

I still don't understand what we're arguing about Joe. You say that there was only one logical conclusion (which we don't know for fact) and I think that conclusion was anticlimatic. As you can see I'm certainly not the only one to think so. As I said before, I love B5 and I ain't knocking any of your friends (at least i don't think so) I just think the war arc was anticlimatic. What's the big beal?

------------------
"Dawn's in trouble? Must be Tuesday." -- Buffy Summers, "Once More With Feeling."
 
Psion, you've missed the point. Joe D just proved that it was a climax. The significant idea was the parent thing, and that was what was resolved in the so called "anti-climax." And the confrontation at the end was not less important than anything that came before it. It was the logical conclusion to the plot.

Moreover, it wasn't sudden. Sheridan had planned on this. It wasn't like all the sudden they had both the Vorlons and the Shadows in one place and he lost his temper all the sudden. It was a deliberate and carefully planned act. You really can't argue it being a sudden transition. It was a transition, yes, but that is what a climax is.

Lastly, it was not ludicrous. Sheridan was backed by all the other races, INCLUDING the other first ones. That's one giant ass kid that just grew past his parents. The Vorlons and Shadows either had to listen, or have one mass destruction on their hands. If the whole universe was against you, what would you choose? Anticlimatic? No. It's quite climactic.

I really dont' understand the point you are trying to make. What do the Drakh have to do with anything? Sheridan got all the credit? Well duh, leaders always get all the credit, especially from enemies looking for somebody to fry
smile.gif


Opinion really has nothing to do with climax or anticlimax. It's all structure and logic of the plot. And as far as that arc goes, the resolution is climactic because it stays true to the plot which came before it

------------------
We're all born as molecules in the hearts of a billion stars, molecules that do not understand politics, policies and differences. In a billion years we, foolish molecules forget who we are and where we came from. Desperate acts of ego. We give ourselves names, fight over lines on maps. And pretend our light is better than everyone else's. The flame reminds us of the piece of those stars that live inside us. A spark that tells us: you should know better. The flame also reminds us that life is precious, as each flame is unique. When it goes out, it's gone forever. And there will never be another quite like it
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Darkwing:
Actually, Berman said that they deliberately set the show where they did so they could have conflict with non-starfleet major characters.
I liked DS9 well before I ever saw B5, and in fact thought that it was a rip-off of DS9 at first (I saw a reviewer call it 'Harlan Ellison's revenge')but when I saw B5, I was blown away, then noticed all the similarities, and eventually figured out *this* is where it originated, rather than the other camp. I still like all thingsTrek (except much of vgr).
And DS9 started arcs well after B5, they just never graduated to full use of the technique, so it wasn't just an initial rip-off.


[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So simply because they had an arc it was a ripoff? sorry, but both TNG and VOY had arcs as well, although they were both primative by comparison. in fact *many* tv shows have arcs, the distinction with b5 was that the entire thing was planned out before hand which was NOT the case with ds9.

and putting the series in a place to cause character conflict does not necessarily mean that they were planning on making more 'real' characters. conflict is the first step towards this, yes, but just about every fictional show out there has character conflict, otherwise it would just be straight placid storytelling with very little interest in it. being on a space station where they cant go anywhere, a general conflict-causing situation was necessary.

for the record, btw, B5 is one of my favorite series with ds9 following a bit behind... i avidly watched both of them, and besides the fact that they're both on a space station it never occured to me that one might have been a rip of another... i know that people on both 'sides' put a lot of work into their respective series, and i highly doubt that any of the production staff of ds9 were involved in any ripping of b5...

------------------
### Hi, I'm a sig virus. Please add me to the end of your signature so I can take over the world.### - caught from Saps @ B5MG
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Psion, you've missed the point. Joe D just proved that it was a climax.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you've just missed my point. Go back and read what I said about climax and anticlimatic. One's typically used as a reference to structure, the other is typically used when talking about the conclusion of a story. Or look up the definitions to each online using Myriam Webster. At no point did I come across the following-- Anticlimatic: the absence of a climax. I gave you the textbook defintion twice now and I believe it fits that definition.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Moreover, it wasn't sudden. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So. It's still anticlimatic.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Lastly, it was not ludicrous <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was not ludicrous... the conclusion to the war arc? I don't think you want to know what I find ludicrous. Anyway, who said anything about ludicrous -- the dictionary I believe, certainly not me.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Sheridan got all the credit? Well duh, leaders always get all the credit, especially from enemies looking for somebody to fry <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for agreeing with me, because that was the very point I was trying to make with Joe. His point was that the reason the war ended was not as simple as Sheridan talking back to the Shadows and Vorlons. My point is that it depends on how you see things. In the context of how I see B5, Sheridan telling the Shadows and Vorlons to get the hell out of their galaxy was one of key moments in the series. Regardless of what other reasons the first ones might have had to leave, the point is that they left immediattly following the speech -- Sheridan must have had a huge impact of their decision.

------------------
"Dawn's in trouble? Must be Tuesday." -- Buffy Summers, "Once More With Feeling."
 
well delenn managed to give the shadows a pretty good chewing out too...
tongue.gif


plus i would say that lorien, as well as the involvment of the other firstones certanly helped......

------------------
### Hi, I'm a sig virus. Please add me to the end of your signature so I can take over the world.### - caught from Saps @ B5MG
 
I don't mean to intrude and *gasp!* move this thread back on topic, but in my daily reading on JMSNews.com, I found this tidbit. Note that according to the message, all the information was passed by word-of-mouth, so there would most likely be no written record anywhere. However, it's an interesting read none-the-less, even if it doesn't constitute first-hand proof:

VSL*

Cheers,
--mcn

*P.S. Sorry, haven't had much occasion to post URL links so I haven't learned all the ins and outs of them yet. Will endeavor to do better in the future. Oh, and VSL stands for Very Short Link :)


[This message has been edited by Capt. Neville (edited January 17, 2002).]
 
Would everybody please for the love of Booji stop posting long URLs? It makes us horizontal scroll. Use the little URL box to the left of the reply area and put something short and to the point for the link.

------------------
Sheridan: Are you trying to cheer me up?
Ivanova: No sir, wouldn't dream of it.
Sheridan: Good, I hate being cheered up. It's depressing.
Ivanova: So in that case we're all going to die horrible, painful, lingering deaths.
Sheridan: Thank you, I feel so much better now.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Would everybody please for the love of Booji stop posting long URLs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hear! Hear!

And this also goes for long lines of ".......", exclamation points and other blocks of text with no spaces in them. In the meantime could the writer or one of the moderators edit the post to get rid of that mess? Thanks.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net
 
If you are referring to my URL post, I edited it immediately after crazy posted (partially because that's the first time I saw the results of my post). Again, I apologize for the long URL. However, I'm pretty sure I fixed it before you posted, Joe D., so did it not go through? Or did something weird happen where now I can only see the edit on my side? *hits IE upside the head* Let me know and I'll edit it again if need be.

--mcn
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>However, I'm pretty sure I fixed it before you posted, Joe D., so did it not go through?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you fixed while I was writing my reply.
smile.gif
(I sometimes get interrupted and leave a reply up for several minutes at a time, so this isn't the first time I've had a post become "dated" before it appeared on the board.) Looks just fine now, thanks.

Regards,

Joe

------------------
Joseph DeMartino
Sigh Corps
Pat Tallman Division
joseph-demartino@att.net
 
That's interesting, Capt. Neville. I'd never heard any of that before. Not specifically, at least.

And I think your editing did the trick. The page is back to normal for me, at least. Perhaps not all edits go through immediately, I'm not sure. It looks fine to me now, at least.

------------------
"The Bible is a book: it is a good book, but is is not the only book" - Inherit the Wind

"I do not believe that the same God who
has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."—Galileo

hypatia@b5fan.b5lr.com
 
I do not for a moment believe that Into The Fire was anti-climatic. But that's just my opinion. If you want to split hairs though, it wasn't anti-climatic. You might have found it *disappointing*, but that in itself doesn't make it *anti-climatic*.

------------------
"Watch the Shadows, they move when you're not looking..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 449 (members: 1, guests: 448)

Share this page

Back
Top