Τέτοια ανάπτυξη χαρακτήρων; Πού, στο Star Trek;Originally Posted by Marillion
Να μου πεις για Β5, οκ ίσως κάτι γινόταν εκεί, αλλά όχι όπως στο BSG.
Κατά τα άλλα, μια χαρά τα λες.
Τέτοια ανάπτυξη χαρακτήρων; Πού, στο Star Trek;
Να μου πεις για Β5, οκ ίσως κάτι γινόταν εκεί, αλλά όχι όπως στο BSG.
Κατά τα άλλα, μια χαρά τα λες.
kalyterh seira ever. i miss y00 BSG
"I am Ubik. Before the universe was, I am. I made the suns. I made the worlds. I created the lives and the places they inhabit; I move them here, I put them there. They go as I say, then do as I tell them. I am the word and my name is never spoken, the name which no one knows. I am called Ubik, but that is not my name. I am. I shall always be."
www.monolith.gr
Kάτσε ρε μαν, είσαι λίγο υπερβολικός. Δεν ξέρω τι παίζει με την κλασική σειρά Σταρ Τρεκ, αλλά με το next gen είχαμε πολύ μα πολύ εμβάθυνση χαρακτήρων και επτά seasons που διατήρησαν τον μύθο ζωντανό (και μπόλικες ταινίες εκ των οποίων μερικές είναι πολύ δυνατές).
Επίσης αυτό που λέμε για sci-fi και εμβάθυνση χαρακτήρων είναι μαλακία καθώς το καλό sci-fi ξεκινά απ΄τους χαρακτήρες για να τελειώσει στα εφφέ και την τεχνοκρατική ατμόσφαιρα. Τονίζω το καλό ε.
Αυτά στην περίπτωση που τα απομονώνουμε στις σειρές πάντα. Για τις ταινίες ελπίζω να συμφωνείτε μαζί μου.
INDIE ROCK, PUNK-METAL, EMOCORE COMMANDO
http://letselectrify.blogspot.com si senior boss man, england very pretty
ΓΥΡΟΣ ΠΑΟΛΑ ΠΛΑΤΩΝΙΣΜΟΣ
ΣΟΦΟΚΛΗΣ ΒΟΛΑΝΗΣ ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΚΟΣ
δηλαδη τι ? το σταρ γουορς δεν ειχε γεματους χαρακτηρες?
1) e4, c5
2) Νf3
επος ο χοντρος.
1) e4, c5
2) Νf3
Η σειρά γάμησε πραγματικά και σε κρατούσε σε όλες τις σεζον. Ειδικά εκείνο το επισόδειο με την Σταρμπακ που προσπαθούσε να βρεί τι παίζει με τις νότες και έπαιζε την μουσική στο πιάνο, όλη η μουσική υπόκρουση και το climax του επισοδείου - πραγματικά ανατρίχιασα.
Τώρα περιμένουμε το The Plan όπου ο Olmos είπε ότι όποιος το δεί θα ξαναξεκινήσει την σειρά από την αρχή (πίπες). Το θέμα είναι ότι θα μας δείξουν τα πράγματα απο την μεριά των Cylons.
Το Caprica φαίνεται πολύ promising από το Pilot. Αντε να δούμε τι παίζει κ μ'αυτό!
ΕΠΟΣ! So say we all!
Χαχα, ρε, το Star έχει πάρει Battlestar και σε μια σπάνια κίνηση μαρκετιν το δείχνει 4:30 το πρωί
ε όχι και σπάνια, το συνηθίζει.
Talking monkey, yeah, yeah. Came here from the future. Ugly sucker, only says "ficus".
Αφού είναι στόκοι οι άνθρωποι!Χαχα, ρε, το Star έχει πάρει Battlestar και σε μια σπάνια κίνηση μαρκετιν το δείχνει 4:30 το πρωί
εδω εδειχνε OZ και sopranos τετοια ωρα
Το Star Wars δεν είναι sci-fi. Επειδή έχει διαστημόπλοια και δε ξ'ερω'γω τι δεν το κάνει και sci-fi. Γράφει ο Philip K. Dick το 1981 σε ένα γράμμα του:
I will define science fiction, first, by saying what sf is not. It cannot be defined as "a story (or novel or play) set in the future," since there exists such a thing as space adventure, which is set in the future but is not sf: it is just that: adventures, fights and wars in the future in space involving super-advanced technology. Why, then, is it not science fiction? It would seem to be, and Doris Lessing (e.g.) supposes that it is. However, space adventure lacks the distinct new idea that is the essential ingredient. Also, there can be science fiction set in the present: the alternate world story or novel. So if we separate sf from the future and also from ultra-advanced technology, what then do we have that can be called sf?
We have a fictitious world; that is the first step: it is a society that does not in fact exist, but is predicated on our known society; that is, our known society acts as a jumping-off point for it; the society advances out of our own in some way, perhaps orthogonally, as with the alternate world story or novel. It is our world dislocated by some kind of mental effort on the part of the author, our world transformed into that which it is not or not yet. This world must differ from the given in at least one way, and this one way must be sufficient to give rise to events that could not occur in our society -- or in any known society present or past. There must be a coherent idea involved in this dislocation; that is, the dislocation must be a conceptual one, not merely a trivial or bizarre one -- this is the essence of science fiction, the conceptual dislocation within the society so that as a result a new society is generated in the author's mind, transferred to paper, and from paper it occurs as a convulsive shock in the reader's mind, the shock of dysrecognition. He knows that it is not his actual world that he is reading about.
Now, to separate science fiction from fantasy. This is impossible to do, and a moment's thought will show why. Take psionics; take mutants such as we find in Ted Sturgeon's wonderful MORE THAN HUMAN. If the reader believes that such mutants could exist, then he will view Sturgeon's novel as science fiction. If, however, he believes that such mutants are, like wizards and dragons, not possible, nor will ever be possible, then he is reading a fantasy novel. Fantasy involves that which general opinion regards as impossible; science fiction involves that which general opinion regards as possible under the right circumstances. This is in essence a judgment-call, since what is possible and what is not possible is not objectively known but is, rather, a subjective belief on the part of the author and of the reader.
Now to define good science fiction. The conceptual dislocation -- the new idea, in other words -- must be truly new (or a new variation on an old one) and it must be intellectually stimulating to the reader; it must invade his mind and wake it up to the possibility of something he had not up to then thought of. Thus "good science fiction" is a value term, not an objective thing, and yet, I think, there really is such a thing, objectively, as good science fiction.
I think Dr. Willis McNelly at the California State University at Fullerton put it best when he said that the true protagonist of an sf story or novel is an idea and not a person. If it is good sf the idea is new, it is stimulating, and, probably most important of all, it sets off a chain-reaction of ramification-ideas in the mind of the reader; it so-to-speak unlocks the reader's mind so that that mind, like the author's, begins to create. Thus sf is creative and it inspires creativity, which mainstream fiction by-and-large does not do. We who read sf (I am speaking as a reader now, not a writer) read it because we love to experience this chain-reaction of ideas being set off in our minds by something we read, something with a new idea in it; hence the very best science fiction ultimately winds up being a collaboration between author and reader, in which both create -- and enjoy doing it: joy is the essential and final ingredient of science fiction, the joy of discovery of newness.
No trees were killed to send this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Το'χω πει κι εγώ Deggial. Ωραία παράθεση, πάντως.
Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do.
Talking monkey, yeah, yeah. Came here from the future. Ugly sucker, only says "ficus".
ξεκινησα το, ειμαι στη μιση πρωτη.Τέτοια ανάπτυξη χαρακτήρων; Πού, στο Star Trek;
Να μου πεις για Β5, οκ ίσως κάτι γινόταν εκεί, αλλά όχι όπως στο BSG.
Κατά τα άλλα, μια χαρά τα λες.
αλλα το quote ειναι ακυρο. δεν εχεις δει deep space 9. κι απο το next generation η εξελιξη του data εχει ενδιαφερον (παλι τα ιδια λεμε)
Vielen Dank für alles was mal war
Posting Permissions
vBulletin Skin by Bluepearl Skins
