Well folks it looks like ...

[Nukemall]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lennier:
<font color=yellow>I like the works of Arthur Clarke, Isaac Asimov and Joe Straczinsky. The television show to which this forum is dedicated... addressed the same topics as Shakespeare. It also addressed topics which Shakespeare blissfully ignored, or never dared to address.

In places where Shakespeare constructed cheap and unbelievable plots to attract more audience, Straczinsky adhered to standards which I greatly respect. My favourite works of science fiction addressed a much wider variety of topics, in much more believable manner.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
I think the time period would have been a factor as well here - the fact that they use different mediums, who they were sponsored by and the political climate may have had a major bearing on the nature of the work (for instance The Bard would not have criticised the monarchy and would always try and portray the English monarchy in a favourable light). Clarke, Asimov and Straczynski all write in a more liberal time where commentaries on politics and culture are more accepted (even commentaries that are critical of human nature).

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Nukemall:

In that case one should continue with the question of why... at times much worse than Shakespeares... many people have still dared to express their views. No matter the personal consequences.

Because at times much more unstable, much more difficult than Renaisscance ever was in England... at times of <font color=yellow>modern</font color=yellow> war or totalitarian society... some people have expressed their views. Often with the knowledge that this may get them in great personal trouble, or prevent them from working in their homeland.

 

[Nukemall]

Shakespeare vs JMS

Meh. Maybe Shakespeare was completely spineless. Or maybe he genuinely like the monarchy - it was a lot more popular back in those days.

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Surely not spineless! I am only saying that some of his plots were cheap, and he ignored several important topics. Some may consider his works excellent, but they are not excellence by definition... nothing ever is.

In fact, I am saying far less than I have said by now. I am only saying that comparing those people/books/plays/shows is quite adequate...

 

[Talathanar]

Gonzo, I just gotta know are you a vorlon? I've read a few other posts by you and they're never more than two short sentances long.

I'll go as far as to ask, did you use a picture of yourself as your avatar?

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

yes, lennier I am not the greatest fan of Shakespeare, but I think that may be due to the time of writing, I do agree with the poster who said that Shakespeare did often "borrow" I can even provide one example, the merchant of Venice that was a story stolen from some Italian guy at the same time I have heard.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quote
-----------------------------------------------------------
When someone, no matter their actual claims, forms his words to offend the people who he expects to reply... then is there anything surprising when a reply is somewhat sarcastic, and suggests forming words in different manner?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Why is it offending? in two of my previous posts I have stated I was just stating some facts maybe I cold have said it a better way but is it my fault that it was taken wrongly ?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quote
-----------------------------------------------------------
a) Please present proof that Rangers got low ratings due to its own flaws. Please indicate similar flaws in all other movies which suffered a similar defeat to that football game.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe I ever stated that rangers got low rating due to its flaws; I just said it had bad dialogue and some hammy acting. And regarding the other films I love river of souls, a call to arms and itb.
-----------------------------------------------------------
quote
-----------------------------------------------------------
Please present proof that the producers, cast and crew of Rangers deliberately caused the movie to fail. At the very least, this should include comments from people who were actually involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I was never serious about that comment that was more of a theory and I believe you have taken that too seriously. It should be taken in jest.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quote
-----------------------------------------------------------
Please explain why liking any excellent work of fiction (including but not limited to television shows) makes people sad and necessitates them getting another life when they already have one life?
------------------------------------------------------------
if I have ever said that people who are interested in b5 and talk about it obsessively , well I am a hypocrite then because I have been on this board for well over a year , ever since jms announced the project and I have engaged in "talk". I did say "get a life" but I was annoyed maybe.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quote
-----------------------------------------------------------
Please explain why somebody called JMS plans to write another story in the world of B5? Why a company called Warner is planning to release said show on DVD? Surely these are indicators of interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Does he? Great! I have not heard this I have heard about the DVD release I myself have the gathering/in the beginning edition on DVD witch I bought earlier this month . I believe that jms should not concentrate on any b5 TV projects, but should concentrate on b5 books in the future.
-----------------------------------------------------------

 

[Jade Jaguar]

SuperBob, I am not a Shakespeare expert. I have read a few of his plays, and a few Greek plays, among others. Contrary to what your posts seem to indicate, there was no single playwright, Greek or otherwise, that was a source for all or most of his plays. The plot/story line for many of his plays have been done before. As I recall, Romeo and Juliet was based on an earlier Italian play, which was based on a still earlier play. People have always borrowed plots. Some say there are only four plots, or seven plots, or something like that. Shakespeare is hard to read,and appreciate, as the language has changed so much since his time, and I am not a huge fan of his. That said, his powers of observation, subtlety, and ability to turn a phrase are amazing. But in his day, he was the popular entertainment of his time, and did play to his audience. Nothing wrong with that. Seeing and hearing familiar stories was something they wanted. His insights and ability to express them was what made him special.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

Re: Shakespeare vs JMS

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Nukemall:
<font color=yellow>Meh. Maybe Shakespeare was completely spineless. Or maybe he genuinely like the monarchy - it was a lot more popular back in those days.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>

There is no evidence that Shakespeare was a Roman Catholic and few other groups were abused by the English Government of Queen Elizabeth Tudor. It is hard for governments to be nasty to the people when they have neither a police force nor a standing army.

Class war has never really played well in the UK. One of the reasons that the UK has had revolutions but still has a monarch. Shakespeare will have picked up and reflected this mood. He did make one English king a hunch back, in a lot of countries that would have caused problems with the censor.

 

[Demon]

Re: Shakespeare vs JMS

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by A_M_Swallow:
<font color=yellow>He did make one English king a hunch back, in a lot of countries that would have caused problems with the censor.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>
But it happened to be the King that the reigning Queen's grandfather had kicked off the throne /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif Making Richard III a hunchback was good politics at the time.

 

[superbob]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jade Jaguar:
<font color=yellow>SuperBob, I am not a Shakespeare expert. I have read a few of his plays, and a few Greek plays, among others. Contrary to what your posts seem to indicate, there was no single playwright, Greek or otherwise, that was a source for all or most of his plays. The plot/story line for many of his plays have been done before. As I recall, Romeo and Juliet was based on an earlier Italian play, which was based on a still earlier play. People have always borrowed plots. Some say there are only four plots, or seven plots, or something like that. Shakespeare is hard to read,and appreciate, as the language has changed so much since his time, and I am not a huge fan of his. That said, his powers of observation, subtlety, and ability to turn a phrase are amazing. But in his day, he was the popular entertainment of his time, and did play to his audience. Nothing wrong with that. Seeing and hearing familiar stories was something they wanted. His insights and ability to express them was what made him special.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>

There we go Jade, you stated my point exactly. I have studied Shakespeare and I do enjoy his work. His work wasn't completely original. His compilation of relevant information into a format that laid down the basis for playwrites to follow. Maybe the use of the word "copy" was inappropriate. It is information and idea's that have been shared, interpreted end presented from the indiviuals own perspective. Authors do it all the time. Does king copy Koontz, not at all. Did JMS copy Tolkien, not a chance. Do they draw on each other for inspiration, definitely. If inspiration is copywrited well then we can write everything off. Movies, books, serials, games.
Hope I cleared up my standpoint there.

 

[A_M_Swallow]

Re: Shakespeare vs JMS

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Demon:
<font color=yellow>But it happened to be the King that the reigning Queen's grandfather had kicked off the throne /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif Making Richard III a hunchback was good politics at the time.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>

That is how to avoid getting caught. You can even become playwrite to the Queen.

 

[Arrghman]

Re: Shakespeare vs JMS

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by A_M_Swallow:
<font color=yellow>He did make one English king a hunch back, in a lot of countries that would have caused problems with the censor.</font color=yellow><hr></blockquote>

oh, more then that... back in the day, the king was supposidely chosen by god, yes? even mentioning killing the king, let alone writing a play about it, was *really* skirting the line of treason. to this day, people who work in theaters wont say the name "macbeth" because at the time, the thing was just plain sacriligious in a religously based monarchy...