Rex Bachmann
Screenwriter
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2001
- Messages
- 1,972
- Real Name
- Rex Bachmann
(post #35):
Quote:
It's not just the character of Vic Fontane that's the problem, it's the way the stories with the holodeck, in gerneral, and him, in particular, trivialize the whole scientific concept and reduce it to just another gimmick to tell more dreary, run-of-the-mill earthbound stories of Bond-era Soviet-style spy intrigue ("Doctor Bashir, I Presume?"), Vegas racketeering ("Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang") . . . .
Like the Voyager's Doctor, Vic Fontane was used to water down the concept of "holographic entity" and it eradicates whatever might make "holographic life" unique unto itself. This was DS 9's equivalent of time-travel or Earth-parallel stories of other series (which I've always pretty much disliked).
When supposedly nonhuman characters (aliens, androids, holoprojections, or others) become "just plain folks", with just plain ol' everyday problems, the whole reason for including them in the first place disappears for me. Jeez, the writers got lazy(-er?) that week. . . .
P.S.: Some of Frank Sinatra's best stuff is fine listening at times, but NOT during a science fiction program.
Kevin Crays wrote (post #72):
Quote:
I disagree, especially in the case of Badda-Bing Badda-Bang. The idea of a virtual being that is alive is Science Fiction.
Nobody said it isn't. It's what's done with these beings that's the issue. They are "sanitized", "homogenized", and "de-scientized". That is the objection. Re-read what I said before!
(post #72):
Quote:
If we look at the progress games have taken on PC's in the last 25 years or so, it's clear that the goal is to create virtual characters that are as human as possible.
The goal maybe, but the actual result? How convenient they just "happen" to get there almost all the time in the movies and on tv. You are quite welcome to your "comfort zone".
(post #72):
Quote:
What's more, I found the episode where Nog lives in the program, a great character piece and an interesting take on how VR could some day be a great therapy tool.
Actually, if I remember correctly, the "therapy tool" is a failure, as its use leads to "holo-escapism" rather than a "cure" for depression, or whatever. "Vic" has to be persuaded to exercise "tough love" on Nog, and one doesn't need a "holosuite"---or a futuristic setting---for that. See the provided link for a discussion of the dangers of the escapist aspects of "holodecks" and similar "virtual-reality" technologies in ST.
(post #72):
Quote:
As for Bond, who's to say that in the 24th century the 1000th James Bond Movie (now a holo-novel) won't be released? ;P
[ho-hum!] Need I say more?
(post #39):
Quote:
Nonsense about the future that assures the viewer/reader that today's elites, tastes, life conditions will always be in place constitutes instant, unearned validation for the status quo and that leaves me cold. I no more believe, for example, that people 500 years in the future, even assuming cultural and technological continuity (which is a BIG assumption, indeed), will be connoisseurs of Elvis or the Beatles than most people in the "Western world" today are connoisseurs of harpsichord music or the minuet.
(post #73):
Quote:
Oh I don't know. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone over age 30 that isn't at least a little familiar with Beethoven. And while I'm not not in my 60's yet, I can't help but notice that people seem to listen to Classical music more as they get older.
"Familiar", yes, "adherent", no. But, I'm repeating myself.
(post #73):
Quote:
And while I'm not not in my 60's yet, I can't help but notice that people seem to listen to Classical music more as they get older.
Which people? Your "close friends"?
(post #73):
Quote:
If Shakespeare can last for 400 years, why can't 20th century culture survive that long?
No one says that it can't, only that it may well not, and that the likelihood of its doing so is not to be taken strictly for granted. And what do you mean by "20th-century culture"? "Modern Western civilization"?
(post #73):
Quote:
The fact that they're forever preserved on film, leads me to believe that it will surivive longer than you think.
"Forever preserved"? "Forever"??? Ha!!! I've read articles that say that much of what is recorded on today's electronic media will not be accessible even a hundred years from now, much less "forever"! And ask the film historians what total percentage of films made in the 20th century now survives.
(post #72):
Quote:
And what difference does it make if they use a 1960's lounge singer or a 24th century lounge singer?
Well, see, here's where people like you show you just don't "get it". The problem is the whole "lounge-thing", and, if you don't get why---I've written on why this is so many, many times on these boards (here, for example)---and/or don't agree, there's little more to say. You either want an otherworldly experience when you view (or read) science fiction or supernatural horror, or you don't. Otherwise, it's SOSO.
In general, your posts embody and recapitulate the attitudes that Hollywood producers prize and pander to:
(a) "Western", especially American, hubris and myopia that the future will be just like the present, only more so : the self-congratulatory and, to my mind, unjustified belief in the unabated continuation of "our way of life" and "our traditional values" through eternity.
(b) anthropocentrism: everything must be or become reduced to "human": other forms and ways of life have little or no value and need not interest us.
The whole progress of "Western" science, it seems to me, has proceeded along the path of decentralizing mankind in the universe. No, the sun doesn't revolve around us, we revolve around it, and it in turn revolves around the center of the Milky Way, and the Milky Way does a dance with other comparable entities, called galaxies, under as yet not well understood circumstances. (Perhaps revolving around another, even larger (more massive) invisible entity?) And in the "other direction", science proceeds to break down our existence and essence into ever tinier entities, some so small and "evanescent" (short-lived) that they can only be detected under the most stringent and highly technologized circumstances. It should, under the current circumstances and state of our knowledge, already be seen clearly that man is not the center, and certainly not the apogee, but only a part of this universal structure, and, hence, the further out one goes or the closest inward one can see, the less significant mankind really is. Yet, through all this ever (bidirectionally) expanding vastness, all many of us can think of is whether future people will be listening to American "pop" or Western classical music a few hundred years from now! And, if they do, so what?!?!?! BFD!!!!!
Taken as a whole, the Hollywood "sci-fi" product has done little except "recentralize" mankind within all of creation. In that sense it is "anti-scientific"!
These things have been discussed here and there in the "Star Trek Gripes and Pet Peeves"-thread and the "'Who Are You?' and 'What Do You Want?': The BABYLON 5 / STAR TREK Comparison"-thread, among other places. You might take a look at some of them, if you are interested and haven't done so.
True sf, to my mind, is best suited for those who are willing and able, and desire to indulge in and undergo mind expansion. That pretty much eliminates those who hunger for nothing more than the same, the same, the same. Try Vegas (ugh!).
Quote:
It's not just the character of Vic Fontane that's the problem, it's the way the stories with the holodeck, in gerneral, and him, in particular, trivialize the whole scientific concept and reduce it to just another gimmick to tell more dreary, run-of-the-mill earthbound stories of Bond-era Soviet-style spy intrigue ("Doctor Bashir, I Presume?"), Vegas racketeering ("Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang") . . . .
Like the Voyager's Doctor, Vic Fontane was used to water down the concept of "holographic entity" and it eradicates whatever might make "holographic life" unique unto itself. This was DS 9's equivalent of time-travel or Earth-parallel stories of other series (which I've always pretty much disliked).
When supposedly nonhuman characters (aliens, androids, holoprojections, or others) become "just plain folks", with just plain ol' everyday problems, the whole reason for including them in the first place disappears for me. Jeez, the writers got lazy(-er?) that week. . . .
P.S.: Some of Frank Sinatra's best stuff is fine listening at times, but NOT during a science fiction program.
Kevin Crays wrote (post #72):
Quote:
I disagree, especially in the case of Badda-Bing Badda-Bang. The idea of a virtual being that is alive is Science Fiction.
Nobody said it isn't. It's what's done with these beings that's the issue. They are "sanitized", "homogenized", and "de-scientized". That is the objection. Re-read what I said before!
(post #72):
Quote:
If we look at the progress games have taken on PC's in the last 25 years or so, it's clear that the goal is to create virtual characters that are as human as possible.
The goal maybe, but the actual result? How convenient they just "happen" to get there almost all the time in the movies and on tv. You are quite welcome to your "comfort zone".
(post #72):
Quote:
What's more, I found the episode where Nog lives in the program, a great character piece and an interesting take on how VR could some day be a great therapy tool.
Actually, if I remember correctly, the "therapy tool" is a failure, as its use leads to "holo-escapism" rather than a "cure" for depression, or whatever. "Vic" has to be persuaded to exercise "tough love" on Nog, and one doesn't need a "holosuite"---or a futuristic setting---for that. See the provided link for a discussion of the dangers of the escapist aspects of "holodecks" and similar "virtual-reality" technologies in ST.
(post #72):
Quote:
As for Bond, who's to say that in the 24th century the 1000th James Bond Movie (now a holo-novel) won't be released? ;P
[ho-hum!] Need I say more?
(post #39):
Quote:
Nonsense about the future that assures the viewer/reader that today's elites, tastes, life conditions will always be in place constitutes instant, unearned validation for the status quo and that leaves me cold. I no more believe, for example, that people 500 years in the future, even assuming cultural and technological continuity (which is a BIG assumption, indeed), will be connoisseurs of Elvis or the Beatles than most people in the "Western world" today are connoisseurs of harpsichord music or the minuet.
(post #73):
Quote:
Oh I don't know. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone over age 30 that isn't at least a little familiar with Beethoven. And while I'm not not in my 60's yet, I can't help but notice that people seem to listen to Classical music more as they get older.
"Familiar", yes, "adherent", no. But, I'm repeating myself.
(post #73):
Quote:
And while I'm not not in my 60's yet, I can't help but notice that people seem to listen to Classical music more as they get older.
Which people? Your "close friends"?
(post #73):
Quote:
If Shakespeare can last for 400 years, why can't 20th century culture survive that long?
No one says that it can't, only that it may well not, and that the likelihood of its doing so is not to be taken strictly for granted. And what do you mean by "20th-century culture"? "Modern Western civilization"?
(post #73):
Quote:
The fact that they're forever preserved on film, leads me to believe that it will surivive longer than you think.
"Forever preserved"? "Forever"??? Ha!!! I've read articles that say that much of what is recorded on today's electronic media will not be accessible even a hundred years from now, much less "forever"! And ask the film historians what total percentage of films made in the 20th century now survives.
(post #72):
Quote:
And what difference does it make if they use a 1960's lounge singer or a 24th century lounge singer?
Well, see, here's where people like you show you just don't "get it". The problem is the whole "lounge-thing", and, if you don't get why---I've written on why this is so many, many times on these boards (here, for example)---and/or don't agree, there's little more to say. You either want an otherworldly experience when you view (or read) science fiction or supernatural horror, or you don't. Otherwise, it's SOSO.
In general, your posts embody and recapitulate the attitudes that Hollywood producers prize and pander to:
(a) "Western", especially American, hubris and myopia that the future will be just like the present, only more so : the self-congratulatory and, to my mind, unjustified belief in the unabated continuation of "our way of life" and "our traditional values" through eternity.
(b) anthropocentrism: everything must be or become reduced to "human": other forms and ways of life have little or no value and need not interest us.
The whole progress of "Western" science, it seems to me, has proceeded along the path of decentralizing mankind in the universe. No, the sun doesn't revolve around us, we revolve around it, and it in turn revolves around the center of the Milky Way, and the Milky Way does a dance with other comparable entities, called galaxies, under as yet not well understood circumstances. (Perhaps revolving around another, even larger (more massive) invisible entity?) And in the "other direction", science proceeds to break down our existence and essence into ever tinier entities, some so small and "evanescent" (short-lived) that they can only be detected under the most stringent and highly technologized circumstances. It should, under the current circumstances and state of our knowledge, already be seen clearly that man is not the center, and certainly not the apogee, but only a part of this universal structure, and, hence, the further out one goes or the closest inward one can see, the less significant mankind really is. Yet, through all this ever (bidirectionally) expanding vastness, all many of us can think of is whether future people will be listening to American "pop" or Western classical music a few hundred years from now! And, if they do, so what?!?!?! BFD!!!!!
Taken as a whole, the Hollywood "sci-fi" product has done little except "recentralize" mankind within all of creation. In that sense it is "anti-scientific"!
These things have been discussed here and there in the "Star Trek Gripes and Pet Peeves"-thread and the "'Who Are You?' and 'What Do You Want?': The BABYLON 5 / STAR TREK Comparison"-thread, among other places. You might take a look at some of them, if you are interested and haven't done so.
True sf, to my mind, is best suited for those who are willing and able, and desire to indulge in and undergo mind expansion. That pretty much eliminates those who hunger for nothing more than the same, the same, the same. Try Vegas (ugh!).
