Toggle menu
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Editing Podcast:Black Market

From the only original and legitimate Battlestar Wiki: the free-as-in-beer, non-corporate, open-content encyclopedia, analytical reference, and episode guide on all things Battlestar Galactica. Accept neither subpar substitutes nor subpar clones.
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 74: Line 74:
And again, this sequence just doesn't- this sequence just feels familiar. I feel like I've been in rooms like this with lead characters on many other movies and tv shows. I just kinda know where this scene's going. There's the bad guy. We're now going to have the confrontation. There's gonna be a lot of talk. There's gonna be the head bad guy confronting the classic hero, telling him in very cynical terms why the hero's view of the world doesn't apply. The hero trying to maintain his own credibility. Blah, blah, blah. It seem just kind of writes itself. Again, the thing that does make it work, if it works at all, is that we have [[Bill Duke]]. I mean, Bill Duke gives you this interesting presence and textures that you want to watch, and I find myself always watching him, every word he says, I'm always watching Bill Duke and fascinated with the way he plays these characters.  
And again, this sequence just doesn't- this sequence just feels familiar. I feel like I've been in rooms like this with lead characters on many other movies and tv shows. I just kinda know where this scene's going. There's the bad guy. We're now going to have the confrontation. There's gonna be a lot of talk. There's gonna be the head bad guy confronting the classic hero, telling him in very cynical terms why the hero's view of the world doesn't apply. The hero trying to maintain his own credibility. Blah, blah, blah. It seem just kind of writes itself. Again, the thing that does make it work, if it works at all, is that we have [[Bill Duke]]. I mean, Bill Duke gives you this interesting presence and textures that you want to watch, and I find myself always watching him, every word he says, I'm always watching Bill Duke and fascinated with the way he plays these characters.  


The best thing in the whole show, in my personal opinion, is the end. Is that Lee shoots him, which was an early idea in the whole episode that you get to that classic moment where [[Wikipedia:Walker, Texas Ranger|Walker, Texas Ranger]], or fill in the blank, [[Wikipedia:James "Sonny" Crockett|Sonny Crockett]], is pointing the gun at the bad guy and the bad guy says, "You won't shoot me." And, lo and behold, they always find an excuse for the ba- for the good guy to shoot the bad guy. The bad guy goes for the gun, the bad guy makes a move, there's some double cross and then you always get the satisfaction, the visceral bloodlust of the audience demanding that the bad guy get shot, but never quite being brave enough to just have the hero shoot the bad guy. Which brings its own set of moral and ethical issues, and if you're gonna- it's sort of like the convention of that method of- that particular story has always been, "The good guy won't shoot the bad guy unless the bad guy threatens him in some way." But it's a complete manipulation 'cause the audience's only interest is to see the bad guy get shot. But the audience wants to have it both ways. The audience sort of wants to be satisfied and have their bloodlust satisfied in that, "Well, thank God, I got to saw- see Walker, Texas Ranger, shoot this guy, but his hands are clean 'cause the bad guy kinda reached for a gun or he kinda flinched or he double crossed him, and that's why the good guy's still good." And I was interested in subverting that and, "Ok. Let's- you want your bloodlust satisfied? Fine. Hero's gonna shoot the bad guy, but guess what? The hero's just gonna shoot him. He's just gonna execute him. And how do you feel about that?" 'Cause again, that's the territory I'm more interested in, in the show, is presenting more complicated moral dilemmas to the audience. To not giving them the pure, clean comfort of, "Hero shoots bad guy, 'cause bad guy did something bad." But making more complex where, "Thank God. I really wanted hero to shoot bad guy, but I'm not quite entirely comfortable with the way it happened, and how do I feel about that?" That's territory I think the show is better equipped to explore and the show fires on all cylinders when it does go into that territory. Here, I think the problem is that beyond that simple... what's the word I'm looking for?- beyond the sort of diagrammed explication of the conflict and why it works and doesn't work, that I just outlined, about hero- hero, villain and audience expectation, etc., etc. But beyond the simple construction of that as an intellectual exercise, I don't know that we've delivered on the central premise here, which is that Bill Duke's question- Bill Duke's statement at the head of the show, "You won't shoot me. You're not like me." When Lee shoots him, you should feel that he shoots him because, "Oh my God! I'm realizing that he is like Bill Duke and oh! Woah! I'm like shocked. And that's- I don't know how I feel about Lee, but I'm really surprised because he's more like Bill Duke than I thought." I don't think the show really says that. I don't think we've accomplished that mission. And that  should have been the mission here, is if you're going to predicate a whole show on this concept, about this central confrontation it should pay off that idea.
The best thing in the whole show, in my personal opinion, is the end. Is that Lee shoots him, which was an early idea in the whole episode that you get to that classic moment where [[Wikipedia:Walker, Texas Ranger|Walker, Texas Ranger]], or fill in the blank, [[Wikipedia:James "Sonny" Crockett|Sonny Crockett]], is pointing the gun at the bad guy and the bad guy says, "You won't shoot me." And, lo and behold, they always find an excuse for the ba- for the good guy to shoot the bad guy. The bad guy goes for the gun, the bad guy makes a move, there's some double cross and then you always get the satisfaction, the visceral bloodlust of the audience demanding that the bad guy get shot, but never quite being brave enough to just have the hero shoot the bad guy. Which brings its own set of moral and ethical issues, and if you're gonna- it's sort of like the convention of that method of- that particular story has always been, "The good guy won't shoot the bad guy unless the bad guy threatens him in some way." But it's a complete manipulation 'cause the audience is only interest is to see the bad guy get shot. But the audience wants to have it both ways. The audience sort of wants to be satisfied and have their bloodlust satisfied in that, "Well, thank God, I got to saw- see Walker, Texas Ranger, shoot this guy, but his hands are clean 'cause the bad guy kinda reached for a gun or he kinda flinched or he double crossed him, and that's why the good guy's still good." And I was interested in subverting that and, "Ok. Let's- you want your bloodlust satisfied? Fine. Hero's gonna shoot the bad guy, but guess what? The hero's just gonna shoot him. He's just gonna execute him. And how do you feel about that?" 'Cause again, that's the territory I'm more interested in, in the show, is presenting more complicated moral dilemmas to the audience. To not giving them the pure, clean comfort of, "Hero shoots bad guy, 'cause bad guy did something bad." But making more complex where, "Thank God. I really wanted hero to shoot bad guy, but I'm not quite entirely comfortable with the way it happened, and how do I feel about that?" That's territory I think the show is better equipped to explore and the show fires on all cylinders when it does go into that territory. Here, I think the problem is that beyond that simple... what's the word I'm looking for?- beyond the sort of diagrammed explication of the conflict and why it works and doesn't work, that I just outlined, about hero- hero, villain and audience expectation, etc., etc. But beyond the simple construction of that as an intellectual exercise, I don't know that we've delivered on the central premise here, which is that Bill Duke's question- Bill Duke's statement at the head of the show, "You won't shoot me. You're not like me." When Lee shoots him, you should feel that he shoots him because, "Oh my God! I'm realizing that he is like Bill Duke and oh! Woah! I'm like shocked. And that's- I don't know how I feel about Lee, but I'm really surprised because he's more like Bill Duke than I thought." I don't think the show really says that. I don't think we've accomplished that mission. And that  should have been the mission here, is if you're going to predicate a whole show on this concept, about this central confrontation it should pay off that idea.


==[http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/downloads/podcast/mp3/214/bsg_ep214_5of5.mp3 Act 4]==
==[http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/downloads/podcast/mp3/214/bsg_ep214_5of5.mp3 Act 4]==

To edit this page, please enter the words that appear below in the box (more info):

Refresh
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

  [] · [[]] · [[|]] · {{}} · · “” ‘’ «» ‹› „“ ‚‘ · ~ | °   · ± × ÷ ² ³ ½ · §
     [[Category:]] · [[:File:]] · [[Special:MyLanguage/]] · <code></code> · <nowiki></nowiki> <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> · <syntaxhighlight></syntaxhighlight> · <includeonly></includeonly> · <noinclude></noinclude> · #REDIRECT[[]] · <translate></translate> · <languages/> · {{#translation:}} · <tvar|></> · {{DEFAULTSORT:}} · <categorytree></categorytree> · <div style="clear:both;"></div> <s></s>


Your changes will be visible immediately.
  • For testing, please use the sandbox instead.
  • On talk pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~).