MickeyNit Lag
WARNING
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
FOR
RECENT
(AMERICAN)
EPISODE
OF
GALACTICA
It's easy- sometimes too easy- to debate what's "good" and "bad" on TV. I know lot of people who enjoy sitcoms, which I find (the live-action ones anyway) to be painfully tedious and relentlessly unfunny. And I know that a lot of folk don't get into sci fi- and even most sci fi fans stop short of my own enjoyment of shows that are so bad, so inept and even so much cheesier than a deep-dish pizza. So what would be an appropriate measure of what is good or bad in such a subjective medium?
I was talking with an old school pal a while back, and it turned out that we had both watched the whole seven seasons of Voyager. This got me thinking about the inevitable problem of writing for TV: The nits. Depending on the show (and one's own expertise in subject matter on the show) one can inevitably find things that the writer just plain got wrong: Technical details, but also basic common sense, as well as discontinuities with other episodes.
When the discussion came around to other shows, like Galactica, we belatedly found a nit in one episode some weeks after it was shown. There was a scene when the Galactica had to bug out fast- and so they stayed to recover some Raptor scouts before they Jumped. We realized somewhat later than since the Raptors have been shown to be Jump-capable, they could have all just Jumped away to safety and then land the Raptors back on board.
The thing is, the show was so engrossing and held our attention so completely that a minor nit like that fell off the radar (nitdar?) and we never even noticed until much later.
This was in stark contrast to Voyager, where almost every episode was like watching Mystery Science Theater 3000. "Oh yeah- it's not just an alien computer, it's a damaged alien computer. Sure, go ahead- plug your own brain into it; that stunt is bound to work right eventually." "They're letting Chakotay fly a shuttle again?? Just drop the shuttle into space and phaser it yourself- cut out the middleman." "Seven of Spandex is searching for her humanity again- surely it's on the side of a milk carton somewhere by now..."
With Voyager the nits came at us fast and furious, while on Galactica they actually edit the scripts instead of rushing the first drafts in front of the cameras. The Galactica stories help us suspend our disbelief, hold us in the story, instead of constantly reminding us how make-believe it all is.
That is a large part of good storytelling: Grabbing up the audience and holding us in the imaginary world while we enjoy the story.
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
FOR
RECENT
(AMERICAN)
EPISODE
OF
GALACTICA
It's easy- sometimes too easy- to debate what's "good" and "bad" on TV. I know lot of people who enjoy sitcoms, which I find (the live-action ones anyway) to be painfully tedious and relentlessly unfunny. And I know that a lot of folk don't get into sci fi- and even most sci fi fans stop short of my own enjoyment of shows that are so bad, so inept and even so much cheesier than a deep-dish pizza. So what would be an appropriate measure of what is good or bad in such a subjective medium?
I was talking with an old school pal a while back, and it turned out that we had both watched the whole seven seasons of Voyager. This got me thinking about the inevitable problem of writing for TV: The nits. Depending on the show (and one's own expertise in subject matter on the show) one can inevitably find things that the writer just plain got wrong: Technical details, but also basic common sense, as well as discontinuities with other episodes.
When the discussion came around to other shows, like Galactica, we belatedly found a nit in one episode some weeks after it was shown. There was a scene when the Galactica had to bug out fast- and so they stayed to recover some Raptor scouts before they Jumped. We realized somewhat later than since the Raptors have been shown to be Jump-capable, they could have all just Jumped away to safety and then land the Raptors back on board.
The thing is, the show was so engrossing and held our attention so completely that a minor nit like that fell off the radar (nitdar?) and we never even noticed until much later.
This was in stark contrast to Voyager, where almost every episode was like watching Mystery Science Theater 3000. "Oh yeah- it's not just an alien computer, it's a damaged alien computer. Sure, go ahead- plug your own brain into it; that stunt is bound to work right eventually." "They're letting Chakotay fly a shuttle again?? Just drop the shuttle into space and phaser it yourself- cut out the middleman." "Seven of Spandex is searching for her humanity again- surely it's on the side of a milk carton somewhere by now..."
With Voyager the nits came at us fast and furious, while on Galactica they actually edit the scripts instead of rushing the first drafts in front of the cameras. The Galactica stories help us suspend our disbelief, hold us in the story, instead of constantly reminding us how make-believe it all is.
That is a large part of good storytelling: Grabbing up the audience and holding us in the imaginary world while we enjoy the story.
