Craig says Bond could be played by a woman...

Since62

Seve wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

Even if that were true, it's not relevant. What does the intention matter? I’m talking about what happens, not the behind-the-scenes reasons for why it happens.

It means that I think that, in the case of the Terminator, it's a coincidence that happens to coincide with your viewpoint

mtm wrote: »

Regardless, it's not true: the heart of the story is the central irony that the most human character is the machine, and that Sarah finds herself becoming a Terminator at one point of the story. It's not about 'hats'.

Well I think it is true (oh no it isn't, oh yes it is, oh no it isn't...)

My personal interest in the Terminator ends with T3, non Arnie or post Govenator holds no interest for me, so I can't comment. Sarah becoming a Terminator is more than I need to know, shark jumping stuff. (Just as I don't care for any more Planet of the Apes after "Beneath", I decided to get off the bus at that point)

mtm wrote: »

Says who? T2 was an enormous hit.

I never said it wasn't
But, in any case, it wasn't a huge success because the Terminator "grew as a person" either
The audience is primarily expected to connect emotionally with the boy and the mother, not Arnie.

The success arises mainly from the resonant story, the spectacular action and the masterful direction of James Cameron.

mtm wrote: »

A story is generally where characters change over time. It's not only soap operas, it's pretty much all stories.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then (if that's alright with you)

mtm wrote: »

So when you said you 'could do without it' when I mentioned the CR scene, you didn't mean it.

Yes, I could do without it, but I could also live with it. I don't mind it, but I wouldn't particularly miss it either.

mtm wrote: »

They're called 'dramas' or 'stories'. All stories basically involve human relationships.
You may call stories which have that 'soap operas', much as I may call TV shows or films without them 'children's shows'.

Ouch!

Human realtionships yes, fine, but when Bond's head over heals in love, then Bond plans to leave the MI6 and enjoy life, then Bond feels bitter and betrayed by Vesper, then Bond returns to MI6, then Bond feels bitter and betrayed by M and effectively leaves MI6 again, then Bond changes his mind, Bond falls in love again, Bond leaves MI6 again, Bond feels betrayed again, Bond returns to MI6 again... Vesper dies, Mathis dies, M dies, Leiter dies, Bond dies

On that scale it becomes melodrama and soap, the same emotions recycled over and over, which is what Medical Dramas and Soap Operas do

mtm wrote: »

Google 'Star Trek reset button syndication'.

Interesting, but it's much the same reasoning that I gave, that the Networks were worried that if the audience missed a weekly episode they might beome confused or frustrated by references to events they had missed seeing and change channels. That applys equally to the initial first run and in syndication.

The "reset button" in Star Trek, particularly in The Next Generation and Voyager, refers to the episodic nature of the shows where most episodes feature self-contained stories, and the status quo is largely restored by the end, minimizing lasting consequences from one episode to the next.

mtm wrote: »

Great, I think the movies are way better. Lots of people agree with you and that's fine, but I think it's more because they enjoy the variety of sci-fi plots rather than because the characters change.

We are in agreement then, some of us prefer plot driven to character driven
I'm not suggesting the two are mutually exclusive, they are mutualy inclusive, but also you can have either on it's own as well.

Many people don't like character studies because there is not enough plot

A character study novel is a literary work where the focus is heavily on exploring the psychology, motivations, and overall personality of one or more characters, often overshadowing the plot itself. The narrative delves into their internal world, relationships, and how they change and evolve throughout the story. Essentially, the character's journey and development take center stage, rather than a traditional plot-driven narrative

Key Characteristics:
Focus on Character: The primary emphasis is on the characters, their inner lives, and their relationships with others.
Psychological Depth: Character studies often explore characters' motivations, desires, fears, and how these shape their actions.
Character Growth: A character study often involves analyzing how the character changes and evolves over the course of the story.
No Traditional Plot: While there may be events or situations, the plot is often secondary to the character's journey.

I don't want James Bond to be a character study at the expense of having a decent plot

mtm wrote: »

Seve wrote: »

In fact I select episodes to watch on that basis, if the synopsis involves personal growth or drama I avoid it

That seems a bit odd to me. That's to say, I sort of know what you mean with regards TNG; if it's one about Worf and his son or something you know it's going to be a pretty boring one because they did a fairly clumsy job with some of those; but the characters are what makes the sci fi stories work because you're supposed to care for them. If you're not interested in them then it's hard to be as emotionally invested in the stories which are being told.

Of course characters always have a baseline, that goes without saying (although here I am saying it again), but that base doesn't have to change over time.

TV Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scottie, Uhuru, Sulu, Chappel and Chekov are unchanging, momentous personal events occasionally happen to them in an episode, but next week they are back as if that never happened and they may never refer to it again.

Yeoman Rand disappeared, but never changed.

Because Kirk did the finger-guns pointing at Rand with a big ol' smile and said, "Yeoman Rand ! DON'T...go changing yeahhhhh"