SGU, by far the most underrated series.

[Deevil]

Sorry there are no rules in art. Whatever works, works. It’s that simple and that complicated.

Everything else you are referring to is related to the rules of the business of film or TV. Nothing to do with art. It may be of importance to those who perpetuate the industry, but of no concern to us.

Sorry, you are greatly mistaken. If the structure of film isn't adhered too we wouldn't understand what was happening on screen. You may not see the structure, but you do know it. For example, ignoring characters and story (kinda), do you know what the rule of the line is? Why it shouldn't be crossed (unless for very specific purposes)? Any idea about eye lines and their importance? Any idea how those 2 very specifc rules impact the story told? How they are used for character?

They are just 2, very important examples of film structure. It exists, it's important. I will even say that bad scripting effects the use of this.

As for scriptwriting, I could go on forever about the importance of a good script in building a product. It's the bridge to the otherwise, build it badly and no one is crossing it. The characters will fall and die, they'll never get to their end conclusion and neither will many of the audience. We, as an audience, understand things in a specific way. As do actors in reading and interpreting a script.

[Deevil]

Umm, Have you ever attended an English class?
Both Dee and I are talking about *scriptwriting*, nothing else.

There's a general ignorance in art about structure. Many people seem to think its all free love and you can do what you want and people will understand you. The world really doesn't work that way. We have a capability of gleaning meaning from things, but only within a framework of referred and referenced knowledge. What writers need to do is play on that knowledge while also being somewhat fresh. It's not easy, it's freaking hard work, but to withhold criticism because of that would be wrong.

And as I said, scripts are the building blocks and when they aren't right the filming isn't either.

[KEK]

Umm, Have you ever attended an English class?
Both Dee and I are talking about *scriptwriting*, nothing else.

Are you though? All I see are vague references to structure and cliché without any real analysis or reasoning. Art is freeform, the problem is that the medium is only art in part.

[Deevil]

Are you though? All I see are vague references to structure and cliché without any real analysis or reasoning. Art is freeform, the problem is that the medium is only art in part.

Because you have offered so much reasoning?

The truth is, you and others are huge fans so it doesn't really matter what critique against the show is offered - you are still fans. You don't want to hear anything against it, and really you are perfectly within your right to love and defend that in which you enjoy... Equally, folks are within their right to notice faults.

It really comes down to one question, does any of this really matter *to you*. If it doesn't, that's fine. Hell, I wouldn't have offered any critique but for what this thread was saying... But it appears we may be hitting the 'live and let live' conclusion of the Convo.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Gatefan, Deevil,

So, Ulysses is by your defintion, poorly written because it does not use accepted tropes to tell the story in that novel?

[Deevil]

Gatefan, Deevil,

So, Ulysses is by your defintion, poorly written because it does not use accepted tropes to tell the story in that novel?

By who? There are a number of novels named Ulysses, so unless I know which one you are talking about I cannot comment on it, assuming I've read it. Of I have I'll happily discuss novels with you in another thread.

This is about SGU and screenwriting/filming. A very different medium.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Deevil,

Ulysses by James Joyce. The stream of consiousness novel.

[Deevil]

Deevil,

Ulysses by James Joyce. The stream of consiousness novel.

I haven't read it, cant say I'm likely too either. While I get what you're trying to say (or think i do), it doesn't apply here. SGU didn't do anything differently in writing or filmatically. It just didn't do what it set out to do all that well. But if ya loved what you got The.End! It doesn't much matter, does it? Kind of like if you enjoyed the Transformers movie, you won't care that narratively it just doesn't work... Incidently, I like those movies so I don't much care .

[jeri]

No worries , the point is they are clearly not cliche. They represent people you meet all the time.

I see today why I didn't understand you're reply, I mistakenly typed argue when I meant agree! Please excuse my mistake, I have been working too much lately.

[jeri]

Unless that change in character is part of the character. Me I'm forced to tollerate critics and find their contribution only occationally helpful. Could probably do without them or alteast wish they keep there input down to a sentence or two. No one can ever claim to know why an artist does one thing or another. Often not even the artist themselves.

I rarely agree with critics about film, TV, literature, art, whatever. I often feel critics are jaded; seen way too much to the point of souring everything.

[KEK]

Because you have offered so much reasoning?

Well yes, actually. You won't find any assertions from me in this thread that I haven't offered reasoning for. I don't think anyone minds critique, but I don't think you can expect people to accept broad matter-of-fact claims about structural scripting faults without at least offering some examples, or reasoning as to why they're faults to begin with.

[jeri]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I found SGU to be a breath of fresh air, and although not perfect, as nothing is, I found no significant faults in it's "execution".

[Deevil]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I found SGU to be a breath of fresh air, and although not perfect, as nothing is, I found no significant faults in it's "execution".

And as I've said a hundred times, if you like what you see and don't care about the rest more power to ya.

KEK - mate you just don't appear to want to hear anything against the show because you like it, which is fine. But don't pretend there has been nothing offered in critique, and that you assert actions have been 'backed up'. Mind you, I don't think you have to back up why you like he show, so it doesn't much matter either way.

[Gatefan1976]

Gatefan, Deevil,

So, Ulysses is by your defintion, poorly written because it does not use accepted tropes to tell the story in that novel?

iwouldconsideritabadnovelifitignoredstandardstructuressuchasspacingpunctuationpa ragraphstructureandsuchtheactualcontentandstoryisentirelyuptothereadertodetermin eiftheyenjoyitandnoonehasyettosaythatpeoplemaynothaveenjoyedsgujustthewayitwas

[KEK]

KEK - mate you just don't appear to want to hear anything against the show because you like it, which is fine. But don't pretend there has been nothing offered in critique, and that you assert actions have been 'backed up'. Mind you, I don't think you have to back up why you like he show, so it doesn't much matter either way.

I thought we weren't talking about likes and dislikes, but supposedly objective failures in the structure of the script(s)? If you're going to assert that they're there, and go so far as to imply ignorance on the part of people who don't believe they belong in art, then I think the least you can do is offer some examples and reasoning behind them. It's more than a fair request, and somewhat disingenuous to try and dismiss it as me 'not wanting to hear anything against the show'. I'm not even sure what one would have to do with the other were that even true...

[jeri]

And as I've said a hundred times, if you like what you see and don't care about the rest more power to ya.

KEK - mate you just don't appear to want to hear anything against the show because you like it, which is fine. But don't pretend there has been nothing offered in critique, and that you assert actions have been 'backed up'. Mind you, I don't think you have to back up why you like he show, so it doesn't much matter either way.

I do care about "the rest". I disagree with your assessment.

You seem to be blind to my point, let me clarify as best I can. My intention is not to fight but I find your attitude insulting in that no matter what, you insist the show was badly done; it's only your opinion, not an objective fact that must be acknowledged by everyone. I don't really care whether you like the show (or any show) or not, what I care about is the idea that you are assuming that my opinion is somehow less valid than yours because it is subjective. Your opinion is also subjective, your pretense that it is not is what bothers me, like you are somehow superior in your critical judgement?

[Deevil]

I do care about "the rest". I disagree with your assessment.

You seem to be blind to my point, let me clarify as best I can. My intention is not to fight but I find your attitude insulting in that no matter what, you insist the show was badly done; it's only your opinion, not an objective fact that must be acknowledged by everyone. I don't really care whether you like the show (or any show) or not, what I care about is the idea that you are assuming that my opinion is somehow less valid than yours because it is subjective. Your opinion is also subjective, your pretense that it is not is what bothers me, like you are somehow superior in your critical judgement?

I don't think I'm superior, I'm just discussing issues I know extremely well as we are talkin about things that are to do with my job. So I may be more picky than is necessary. Also, I don't mind if you disagree with me and not take anything I sy as
'fact', I'm truely sorry if I made you think that.

On the topic the OP brought to the table, with all is technical faults I cannot find it 'underrated'. Ignoring the technical faults, which some are appearing to do, makes it 'overrated'. In the end, subjectively, it does come down to hat you like and don't like - I am just critiquing the technical and writing things that helped hold it back from being the masterpiece it had the *potential* of being. And yes, the fact that it didn't live up to that potential annoyed the hell out of me, if that's what you mean by subjective well yes I am, but the technical issues are still issues irrespective of whether they annoyed me or not.

ETA: I don't think the whole show was horribly done BTW. There were some amazing miss-en-scene to be seen. I give a lot of the production crew a hell of a lot of credit for what we see on screen. I don't hate the show by any means, but I'll concede something - the execution isn't the problem. Execution was well done, the conception (scripting) was the bigger problem.

KEK: Mate, there comes a time where we define insanity and we're there. I don't have time to itemise every technical issue in every way for every episode and why it's a problem, just like you don't have time to read it all. I gave a few points, accept them as you will. Enjoy the show as you do... Alls good. But I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree.

[Brother Freyr]

I've got to agree with Deevil and Gatefan here. If you don't believe them, crack open any textbook on the history of narrative film. It's a language with widely understood standard forms. Art more generally has rules too, and art criticism discusses how a work conforms to, and deviates from, from those rules.

[Gatefan1976]

I thought we weren't talking about likes and dislikes, but supposedly objective failures in the structure of the script(s)?

Hmm what would you like to hear?
That the characters do not coninuously grow?
That for every step forward in thier personalities there are steps backwards?
Take Chole or Eli for example.
In some episodes they hit an "epiphany moment", yet in the very next episode, that growth seems to be lost? (much as what happened in SGA with Mckay)
Difference is, SGA is 22 arguablely *stand alone* eps, whereas SGU is supposed to be a narrative. As a continuous narrative, higher standards apply to characterization and continuity. What I forgive in, umm..... "bubblegum scifi" I will NOT is a serialized narrative.

If you're going to assert that they're there, and go so far as to imply ignorance

ROTFLMFAO!!!
Did you HONESTLY play that card after all the "people just don't get it" dross you have been pushing for 2 years??

on the part of people who don't believe they belong in art, then I think the least you can do is offer some examples and reasoning behind them. It's more than a fair request, and somewhat disingenuous to try and dismiss it as me 'not wanting to hear anything against the show'. I'm not even sure what one would have to do with the other were that even true...

Explain within a structure that ignores personal perception why SGU is "so good"
Every impartial measuring stick that is applied to SGU shows it to be a failure, why is it so good?

NOTE:
I am not trying to upset SGU fans here, if you like it, cool, I've got NO problem with that at all.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Gatefan,

My point is that Ulysses is consider a classic because it does things differently. Therefore, I find it hard to beleive that any form of Art can be judged objectively. Hell, Kim Stanley Robinson's new book 2312 is doing some creative things with standard narrative structure. Art is very difficult to look at objectively.