XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.movies.current-films   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, alt.fan.tom-servo   
   From: 3cjmd@comcast.net   
      
   On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:39:27 -0400, shawn    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 00:02:19 +0100, "Alison Hopkins"   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>"Wayland"  wrote in message   
   >>news:ic9kc2ldtj6qd19hvmuu6ofgem0tnomo3u@4ax.com...   
   >>> On 28 Jul 2006 04:48:00 -0700, Troy.Heagy@gmail.com wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Paul Harper wrote:   
   >>>>> dialogue is some of the shittiest exposition I have every had to listen   
   >>>>> to. When his characters were *supposed* to be making speeches, then   
   >>>>> fine, but even when they weren't, they were *still* making speeches.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Sounds like Shakespeare.  He did alright (or so I'm told).   
   >>>   
   >>> Shakespeare was a master of both monolog and dialog.  His characters   
   >>> play on words back and forth with each other throughout his plays.  He   
   >>> switches the meter of the lines to give the dialog greater depth,   
   >>> sometimes having one character talk in prose and the other in verse to   
   >>> emphasize points.   
   >>>   
   >>> JMS is no Shakespeare, not by a long shot.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>I've seen several Shakespeare plays at the Globe. They are stripped bare; no   
   >>sets, no folderol, nada. They are an utter joy.   
   >   
   >And would utterly fail as a product of television. The problem is that   
   >while Shakespeare was a tremendous talent his audience was a very   
   >different one from the mass audience you find viewing television   
   >today. That kind of prose would turn viewers away in droves.   
      
   The audience wasn't that different when you place the Bard in his   
   *context* (not ours).  It was a different time, different use of   
   language.  But not so different that it cannot find deep resonance   
   still today, with fairly large (and not unrepresentative either,   
   unless you consider beer- guzzling, sports-gawking couch potatoes as   
   the choice representatives of todays humanity, in which case you think   
   like a studio suit and you'd never get writers who don't insult the   
   audience's intelligence) audiences still today, as Branagh proved not   
   that long ago with the movie adaptations of _Henry V_ (Derek Jacobi as   
   the Chorus certainly helped) and _Much Ado About Nothing_ (before he   
   got all stuffy for his _Hamlet_).  Then there's Mel Gibson's _Hamlet_   
   <*shudder*>.  They were theatrical productions of course, but later   
   met their fair share of success when shown in the tele too.  Your use   
   of the word "utterly" in the above context thus strikes me as utter   
   (and utterly misguided) hyperbole.   
      
   I'd say that if you are the kind of person who relishes _B5_,   
   _Farscape_, _Buffy_, _Angel_, _Firefly_ and a few others, there is a   
   fair chance that you'd relish Shakespeare when exposed to it.   
      
   Cheers,   
      
   Jaime   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)