>In article <38aa1449.9172...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> k...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(She Who Mews) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:45:34 GMT, smau...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>> >In article <38a4fdad.3104...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> > k...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(She Who Mews) wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 21:17:48 GMT, smau...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> >> >In article <38a2092f.10171...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> >> > k...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(She Who Mews) wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 18:17:54 GMT, smau...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>> >> >> I could accept a liitle disbelief there. These scripts are just
toss off and
>> >> >> historical goofs enhance the poor efforts. I mean, Ben Franklin
>> >> >> walikng around 11 years after he's dead??
>
>> >> >So what? It was never pretended to be accurate in the first place.
>
>> >> But can being this sloppy with basic historical facts justify the
>> >> writers' attempt to create a script only a few find funny?
>
>> >They're not being sloppy just for the hell of it. That's what being
>> >tongue-in-cheek is all about. If they were ever concerned for one
minute
>> >about historical accuracy, they wouldn't be doing a period TV show.
>
>> "Quantum Leap" did a lot of tongue-in-cheek with history ("Are you OK,
>> Dr. Heimlich?"). Those writer did research and it got a prime time
>> network time slot for five years for its efforts. JOAT, a syndicated
>> show with a small slot placed whever the station's general manager
>> wants to put it, can't say that.
>
>Quantum Leap had a different agenda. FWIW, I didn't like Quantum Leap.
Their agenda: make a good show. And it worked, too! Gee, I wonder why
I can't find repeats of JOAT on TV?
>> >> >BTW, how accurate was the Orb and its special powers?
>
>> >> Now, who's nitpicking Briscoe? Again, it was entertaining show
where
>> >> I could suspend my disbelief.
>
>> >And you can't do the same for JOAT? Come on, Briscoe wasn't that
great.
>> >The writing certainly wasn't much better than JOAT.
>
>> No, I can't do the same. I shouldn't have to force myself to do that,
>> that's up to the writers to do that for me. Briscoe did that right,
>> if they did anything right.
>
>Not any better than JOAT.
But nobody remembers JOAT?
>> >> >> If someone likes a show's premise and performers, but there are
many
>> >> >> flaws, they should point out these flaws and see if they get
fixed. I
>> >> >> imagine Bruce or whoever reads this and appreciate some creative
>> >> >> criticism.
>
>> >> >I believe that these are not flaws and are actually what makes the
show
>> >> >better than most. The show's tongue is planted firmly in its cheek.
It
>> >> >would certainly be unwatchable if this element was taken out for
any
>> >> >kind of "accuracy."
>
>> >> I think it's unwatchable as it is. I'm making a suggestion as to
how
>> >> to improve the show while not changing the general premise.
>
>> >Making it more "accurate" would take away the single most entertaining
>> >element.(other than Campbell's smug, smartass attitude)
>
>> Again, I'm making a suggestion as to how to improve the show while not
>> changing the general premise. IM' NOT LOOKING FOR 100% ACCURACY!
>
>And I say that it's fine the way it is! Adding ANY accuracy to the show
>would diminish what the writers are trying to do.
Yeah, that quality of JOAT has lasted the ages, hasn't it?
>> >> >> >> In this week's episode, Ben Franklin (who died in 1790) is
kidnapped by
>> >> >> >> Blackbeard (who died in 1718, and who was not black as
****trayed in the
>> >> >> >> episode). At one point in the episode, a Frenchman suggests
that Blackbeard
>> >> >> >> take penicillin, which was invented in the 1920s.
>
>> >> >> >That's certainly not any worse than anything in Xena or Hercules
where
>> >> >> >we regularly heard late-20th century colloquialisms.
>
>> >> >> I can forgive the colloquialisms, but a lot of other things just
can't
>> >> >> be overlooked that easily.
>
>> >> >Yes, they can. Especially if they are jokes.
>
>> >> Only if the jokes are funny and not insuling to the intellect.
>> >> Otherwise, I'm forced to find something else to entertain myself
while
>> >> watching. Sadly, it would be to find more things wrong with the
show.
>
>> >Then why not watch something else? I'm sure you would be able to find
>> >something to watch on the WB.
>
>> I suppose this defense is supposed to work when you run out of things
>> to say?
>
>Anyone who takes the time to find the littlest flaws in a half-hour show
>that doesn't even pretend to be accurate IN ANY WAY has some issues. if
>you can't find any enjoyment in the show then quit watching.
I did and so did a bunch of others people. And they took it off the
air. Sad for you.
>> >> >> >> As for it not being a history lesson... unfortunately, most
kids today learn
>> >> >> >> just about everything they know from television. So yes, it
is a history
>> >> >> >> lesson.
>
>> >> >> >No, it's not. It's a television show. Do you understand the
concept of
>> >> >> >fiction? They could have Bruce visit Ghengis Khan in Machu
Picchu during
>> >> >> >the American Revolution and it wouldn't matter. The show is
fiction. The
>> >> >> >stories are fictional. And most of the characters are
fictional.(And
>> >> >> >what real characters we do see are fictionalized versions of
,themselves)
>
>> >> >> But history is real.
>
>> >> >You obviously don't know ANYTHING about history.
>
>> >> And you obviously don't know ANYTHING about what I'm saying. I'm
not
>> >> talking about history as interpreted by scholars, just basic facts
>> >> that most of the audience knows.
>
>> >History is all about interpretation. In fact, there are no such things
>> >as basic facts. That's why I said you have no clue about history.
>
>> So, the Japanases didn't bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and
>> Franklin didn't die in 1790? It's just a matter of interpretation?
>> Thanks for enlightening me :)
>
>Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor and did we know before it
>happened? What does knowing the date an event occured mean when it comes
>to understanding events and people?
>
>I challenge you to find 1 person that knows when Franklin died.(or even
>cares)
I have a tremendously huge choice of biographers, historians, and
educators who know. And yuo wanted just one? Should I make a list?
Would you like it alphabetically or in order of im****tance?
>> >> >> If fiction is going to be based on history, the
>> >> >> effort to get most of the facts right should be made.
>
>> >> >Not if their intention was to parody that history or make fun of
it.
>
>> >> Then, they should make a better effort to make a good parody.
>
>> >I think they've done a good job so far, but that Kentucky Sue had to
be
>> >one of the most annoying characters I have ever had the pain to watch.
>> >If their intention was to torture their audience, then they succeeded.
>> >Otherwise, it was a waste of time.(I might have like it more, if I was
>> >the one being manhandled :-))
>
>> I guess that's a matter of interpretation, too :)
>
>Exactly.
>
>> >> >> Briscoe and Wild Wild West got it right
>
>> >> >I don't think so. Wild, Wild West had to be one of the most
inaccurate
>> >> >westerns to ever grace TV. But I still loved that show when I was a
kid.
>> >> >Looking back on it now, I realize just how crappy it really was,
but
>> >> >that doesn't take away from my sentimental feelings for it.
>
>> >> My point with WWW was that they got a general historical perspective
>> >> correct.
>
>> >In what way? If you mean that they dealt with real people and real
>> >events as little as possible, you may be right.
>
>> How about in the way that they weren't expecting Lincoln to walk in
>> long after he died, like Franklin did in JOAT?
>
>That wasn't the agenda for WWW. WWW was a western version of James
>Bond.(look at when it came out-1965) It was all about this
>smooth-operating Secret Service agent and the action and the gadgets.
I didn't know entertainment had agendas.
>> > It's easy to be accurate
>> >if you make everything up. I still find it humorous that President
Grant
>> >would have allowed his own personal security people to spend nearly
100%
>> >of their time NOT protecting him. And then to give them free run of
the
>> >railroad system with their own private(and very-well furnished) train?
>> >Talk about convenient.
>
>> I think Grant prolly
>
>What the hell is prolly? Do you mean probably?
Yes, jackass. Congratulations on figuring it out on your own!
>> had more than 2 Sercet Service agents, who are,
>> btw, not personal security at the time.
>
>That may be, but you know that 2 agents wouldn't be given free reign of
>the rail system with their own train and luxury car.
>> The Secret Service offered
>> unoffcial protection of the President beginning in 1894. By 1930,
>> they became the official security force when they took over the White
>> House Police.
>
>Actually, it was 1902 when they assumed full-time responsibility for the
>protection of the President.
But the White House Police still existed.
>> In Grant's time, they were only "detecting persons
>> perpetrating frauds against the government", such as counterfieting
>> and mail train theft (I would persume that, if they existed, a private
>> and furnished train car would have been appropriate).
>
>For two agents? I don't think so.
>
>> Grant, btw,
>> wouldn't have direct control of them, as they are under the Treasury
>> Department's control.
>
>1883 was when they were officially designated as such.
Wrong!
>> >> >>, so why can't JOAT? I think making JOAT
>> >> >> an hour show could give it more space for development, but they
need
>> >> >> to improve on what they already have before this can happen.
>
>> >> >That's where you're wrong. I would like to see it as an hour long
show,
>> >> >but certainly not to try and make it "accurate."
>
>> >> You're wrong, too. I never said anything about making it fully
>> >> accurate, but to have the show be SLIGHTLY MORE accurate and not
just
>> >> toss offs.
>
>> >But that's the whole point of the show. It's not meant to be accurate
in
>> >any way. It's a goofball show that just HAPPENS to be set at the turn
of
>> >the 19th century.
>
>> How many times do I have to say this? I'm not asking for pinpoint
>> accuracy, I'm asking to get some general historical facts right,
>> regardless of how you would interpret them, and make the audience
>> beleive the writers have more than two brain cells.
>
>That is not what the show is about. Can you not understand that? Is that
>not obvious? The show would be less if it tried to be accurate in any
>respect.(Just look at that submarine. There's no way it could move in
>the real world of physics)
Then what was the show about? It seemed that so many people didn't
get it.
>> >> >> >You cannot make a TV show or a movie about real people and real
events
>> >> >> >without fictionalizing them.(especially if you want them to be
>> >> >> >entertaining) It is impossible to do.
>
>> >> >> Fictionalizing acutal people has been done for years.
>
>> >> >No, fictionalizing actual people has ALWAYS been done.
>
>> >> Uh, I think I said that.
>
>> >No, you said they had been doing it for years- as if this is some kind
>> >of recent trend. Every film ever made that deals with real people has
>> >done this. They cannot avoid it. That doesn't meant the film is no
good
>> >because it cannot fully capture who that person was or their
motivations
>> >and shortcomings. It's just the nature of the medium.
>
>> "Years" should have been more specific, tho I thought I was clear. I
>> meant what you said and i t could be looked as we have said the same
>> thing. I guess., again, it's a matter of your interpretation. :)
>
>Instead of years you should have just said always.
>
>> >> >Every time an
>> >> >actual person is ****trayed on film or TV they are fictionalized. TV
is
>> >> >fiction. Film is fiction. You cannot recreate history(which, in of
>> >> >itself, is not accurate or objective) in a fictional medium.
>
>> >> But, it has been done, reagrdless of the dergee of accuracy.
>
>> >No, it hasn't. In fact, there is no way to recreate any historical
event
>> >with complete accuracy. It is impossible because the records were
>> >created by people- and people are not objective and they cannot
>> >remember everything.
>
>> No, but, in the case of JOAT, getting things in that time period way
>> off certainly shows that they are not bothering to recreate the time.
>
>Exactly. They AREN'T trying to recreate that time. I think you're
>finally starting to understand what they ARE trying to do- make a fun
>show that thumbs its nose at history and accuracy of any kind.
And, so, sloppy writing is justified.
>> >> >> Alex Haley's "Roots" and Miller's "The Crucible" are
>> >> >> just examples of history as fiction with many slight
embellishments.
>
>> >> >That is an understatement. Roots is based almost entirely on
fictional
>> >> >events. The Crucible is complete fiction.(Miller took the skeleton
story
>> >> >of the witch trials and created his own version)
>
>> >> I think that was my point.
>
>> >They are not- in any way, shape or form- history.
>
>> Since I'm getting weary of repeating myself, let me just cut and paste
>> this here:
>
>> >> >> Alex Haley's "Roots" and Miller's "The Crucible" are
>> >> >> just examples of history as fiction with many slight
>
>embellishments.
>
>And let me cut and paste:
>
>Alex Haley's "Roots" and Miller's "The Crucible" are
>just examples of <snip> fiction with many <snip>
>embellishments.
>
>I snipped the inappropriate words.
>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>> >> >> But, because the stories work, they can be forgiven.
>
>> >> >Only as entertainment, not as any accurate retelling of those
stories
>> >> >and certainly not as historical facts.
>
>> >> Yes, but good entertainment. I certainly don't watch these things
for
>> >> histroy lessons,
>
>> >Then quit *****ing about the lack of historical accuracy.
>
>> I wasn't *****ing to begin with, I was pointing out something out and
>> wondering if it was obvoius to the JOAT audience.
>
>It was obvious because it was intended.
So, what was the purpose of JOAT's half-ass writing?
>> It's just that some
>> people on this board so violenty sup****t the show that they treat its
>> criticism as a sin.
>
>I will accept criticism from someone that understands what the show is
>about, but you have yet to demonstrate that you do.
Jack of All Trades is set at the turn of the 19th Century on the
fictional French-controlled island of Palau-Palau. Jack Stiles is an
American secret agent sent there by President Jefferson. While there
he meets his British contact and love interest, English spy Emilia
Rothschild. Together the two work to stop Napoleon and various other
threats to the United States. To the public, Jack is seen as Emilia's
man-servant (she sometimes serves as his), but when the need arises he
transforms into the masked hero: the Daring Dragoon.
Did I miss something?
>> There has to be some defense. Replying with such
>> witticisms as "IT'S A SHOW", "if you don't like it, don't watch it"
>> or, my fav, "Then why not watch something else? I'm sure you would be
>> able to find something to watch on the WB" is not a suitable defense
>> and easy to refute.
>
>It IS a show. That's why I find it humorous that you are so concerned
>about the details.
And I find it more humorous that you defended this peice of **** for a
whole week.
>> >> but they at least these works are excellent at making
>> >> me suspend my disbeleif and JOAT isn't doing that.
>
>> >It's not supposed to!
>
>> Any good fiction is supposed to.
>
>No, it's not. You imply that you know what good fiction is. I'm not sure
>that you do.
Yet, here is this post of you defending an insignificant and
horrendously written syndicated TV show for the world to see as long
as the internet exists.
>> >JOAT is not about the historical setting. It's
>> >about Jack and his adventures. The setting is secondary.
>
>> Very, very secondary, from the looks of it.
>
>Bravo! You're getting closer to realizing what the show is trying to
>do(or not do, depending on your perspective) :-)
Was it trying to suck tremendously? It succeeded beyond its
expectations.
>> >> >> If a writer
>> >> >> wants to convince his audience that Hannibal's army attacked Rome
with
>> >> >> B-1 bombers, he would have to work very hard to do just that.
>
>> >> >You still don't understand what the people behind JOAT are trying
to do.
>
>> >> I think I do: they're making a sawshbuckling comedy about 19th
century
>> >> spies using double entrendes and fuzzy history for humorous elements
>> >> and failing miserably.
>
>> >And doing pretty well.
Yep, they're doing so well and still going strong after seven years on
the air...oh, wait a minute!
>> >> And you're missing my point: They should work harder at making a
>> >> better show.
>
>> >It's fine. That's MY point.
>
>> Can we bury this dead horse now?
>
>In JOAT, Jack would be riding it. ;-)
And, after seven years, smaug69, I FINALLY got the last word!
....................,/¯../
..................../..../
............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
.........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
.........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
..........\.................'...../
...........''...\.......... _.·´
.............\..............(
...............\.............\
|
