Farscape or Babylon 5?

[Lindley]

You know what the really ironic thing is? kirk's reaction to A Human Reaction is exactly the same as Crichton's is to the beginning of WGFA. More or less, "A 'he's really back on earth' story? REALLY?"

[kirk55555]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Because it's surreal and outrageous and blackly comic?

Honestly, it's much better ep than "The Locket," which, as I recall, is more of a straightforward time-travel drama like you'd find on any other SF series.

Yeah, I wouldn't say The Locket was a particularly good episode. Not bad, but its definately forgettable.

Again, there's more to any TV episode than just what happens. There's the acting, the editing, the dialogue and character interactions, the grace notes and funny bits that make the whole experience worth watching. Not to mention the costumes and makeup and special effects.

You're right, although I can forgive bad make up/special effects/editing if the story is good. Still, there is just some stuff I don't like, reguardless of what show is doing it. The whole fake out thing that episodes like A Human reaction/WGFA have is definately something I don't enjoy, as is the premise of the Princess Trilogy. Its nothing against farscape, I just don't think stuff like that is entertaining (well, the fake out thing, in very rare instances, can be done well, but after A human reaction I don't think Farscape can do it).

You can't just judge a story by the plot alone. By that standard, JAWS is just "a big shark eats some people, then they blow it up." And the Spielberg movie is no different than some low-budget straight-to-video knockoff.

I actually don't like Jaws. I can kind of see why people that saw it when it came out would like it, but it came out 15 years before I was born, and to me its just a slow movie with lackluster shark effects

What matters is not the plot, but how the story is told . . . and the experience along the way. It's the journey, not the destination.

I get what you mean, but why would I want to experience the bumps on the way to the destination? I don't think I've ever watched every episode of a tV show, there is always some episodes I skip (well, except maybe episodes of Firefly, those were all pretty good). Farscape's second season has been a bit rough, but its picking up now, and just looking ahead I don't forsee and skips for awhile (unless one of the upcoming episodes is a Chiana episode and I can't tell from the summary, then there may be some skipping, or atleast some major fast forwarding).

Lindley wrote:

---

You know what the really ironic thing is? kirk's reaction to A Human Reaction is exactly the same as Crichton's is to the beginning of WGFA. More or less, "A 'he's really back on earth' story? REALLY?"

Yeah, that was basically my reaction. I couldn't believe they'd pull out that cliche again so soon.

[Lindley]

kirk55555 wrote:

---

The whole fake out thing that episodes like A Human reaction/WGFA have is definately something I don't enjoy

WGFA doesn't qualify as a fake-out story. It doesn't even try to pretend he's really on Earth for more than about 30 seconds.

[KellynSE]

Here’s the thing: Farscape is just as much a character study of one John Crichton as it is a space opera, and "Won’t Get Fooled Again" is as adept an examination of John’s psyche as any other episode that ever aired. Skip episodes like this, and you are not getting the entire story.

I like both “A Human Reaction” and “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” but like every other single poster has insisted: These. Episodes. Are. Nothing. Alike. Different tone. Different style. Very different context.

If you recall the bit of AHR you did watch--was it a surreal, lightning paced black comedy barreling towards a shattering, chilling conclusion? No? Then it’s not “Won’t Get Fooled Again” by any stretch of the imagination.

You said you liked "The Ugly Truth"? So did I, but it's far far far more pedestrian as a Rashomon retread than WGFA is as a riff on Back To Fake Earth.

[KellynSE]

Lindley wrote:

---

You know what the really ironic thing is? kirk's reaction to A Human Reaction is exactly the same as Crichton's is to the beginning of WGFA. More or less, "A 'he's really back on earth' story? REALLY?"


Yeah, that was basically my reaction. I couldn't believe they'd pull out that cliche again so soon.

If the show is saying the same thing that you are then maybe, just maybe you might want to trust that it knows what it's doing in this particular instance.

[Jolaris]

kirk55555 wrote:

---

As for Won't Get Fooled Again, I know people keep saying its not like A Human Reaction, but its still too close for me to have any desire to watch it. I know its not the real Earth, therefore its just a waste of time to watch him walk around a obviously fake earth for 30+ minutes until he escapes/gets rescued/gets released and he's back on Moya like nothing happened. I just don't understand the appeal.

The appeal is that the episode is both laugh-out-loud funny in its' absurdity and chilling in it's conclusion. When I watched it for the first time it didn't take long before I had entirely forgotten that it was suppose to be about a fake earth and just rolled with the comedy as it goes more and more of the rails...

And on Farscape there is no such thing as "he's back like nothing happened".

It's like saying Schindler's List and Robin Hood: Men in Tights are about a man saving the common people from a dictator.

[JD]

Watch this clip and this clip, and then you can see why people love WGFA so much. IMO if you don't like these clips then you should just stop watch Farscape right now.

[Forbin]

"You have the right to the remains of a silent attorney!"

How can you not love it?

[Sindatur]

To say nothing of the fact, the title tells you it's not the same Won't Get Fooled Again"

[Greg Cox]

Lindley wrote:

---

WGFA doesn't qualify as a fake-out story. It doesn't even try to pretend he's really on Earth for more than about 30 seconds.

Precisely, as the title indicates, Crichton doesn't get faked out again. That's the whole point. The episode takes the original gimmick and throws it out the window--with extreme prejudice!

Plus, again, the execution and tone of a story is what matters,not the bare bones of the plot. The story of King Arthur has been done as a Disney cartoon, a Broadway musical, a Monty Python spoof, and an R-rated epic full of blood and sex, but I don't think you can assume they're all just the same old thing.

"Nah, I didn't like Camelot, so I'm going to skip Excalibur."

[kirk55555]

JD wrote:

---

Watch this clip and this clip, and then you can see why people love WGFA so much. IMO if you don't like these clips then you should just stop watch Farscape right now.

I was not a fan of that first clip. I don't like seeing weird stuff like that, where the characters are used in a weird dream/hallucination scenes acting in ways that they never would normally, atleast not in more serious shows. Scrubs did stuff like that very well, but its a much different show than Farscape. In Farscape, it just ticks me off. Although, to be fair, Rygel was pretty funny, but the first 50 seconds with just Aeryn, Jar jar and Zhaan was painful.

That second clip was just stupid to be stupid. It was about as funny as a stick in the eye. That just reinforces my opinion on the episode.I don't like bat s@$& crazy "humor" like that, stuff without context. Why is Crais wearing women's shoes while in a cop uniform funny? Why is he in a cop uniform in the first place? I need context with humor, even the wackiest Scrubs daydreams had some kind of context, or made some kind of sense. Having watched over a season and a half of farscape, stuff like that has actually never happened before (even Cracker's Don't matter made some kind of sense), so I don't think it represents the series at all. The show has made me laugh, but I need more than uncomfortable, unfunny sexual humor and crais in high heels when it comes to comedy.

Now, for the episode I watched earlier today.

Liars, Guns and Money Part 1 (Farscape) - I liked this episode (which means people can stop telling me to quit the series, right ). It had some flaws, but overall was enjoyable. It does make me wonder, yet again, what Scorpius's motivation is. He hasn't been given any real reason why he's doing all these weird things to John, why he's taking so much time and using so many resources to capture him. Why would he put a chip in John's head? Is this all because John resisted his stupid chair the first time he was captured? His actions just make no sense at all, atleast Crais had a reason to hunt John, even if it was kind of stupid. Scorpius just seems to have nothing better to do than to chase John. Besides that, this was a solid episode, and I think this will be a good group of episodes.

[Lindley]

kirk55555 wrote:

---

It does make me wonder, yet again, what Scorpius's motivation is. He hasn't been given any real reason why he's doing all these weird things to John, why he's taking so much time and using so many resources to capture him. Why would he put a chip in John's head? Is this all because John resisted his stupid chair the first time he was captured? His actions just make no sense at all, atleast Crais had a reason to hunt John, even if it was kind of stupid. Scorpius just seems to have nothing better to do than to chase John. Besides that, this was a solid episode, and I think this will be a good group of episodes.

You would know the answers to those questions, at least to a degree, if you hadn't chosen to skip key episodes.

[kirk55555]

Well, a little confusion is worth skipping the Princess trilogy (I'm assuming thats what you're talking about, I don't think the other episodes I skipped even had scorpius). I'm sure it will be mentioned eventually. I tried looking on wikipedia and googling "why does Scorpius want to capture John Crichton?" and got no info, but its not a huge deal. His motivation is bound to come up again eventually.

[Lindley]

Again, you're wrong. You should simply accept that we know what we are talking about when we say which episodes are important and which are not.

[kirk55555]

Lindley wrote:

---

Again, you're wrong. You should simply accept that we know what we are talking about when we say which episodes are important and which are not.

I'm wrong about what? That Scorpius's motivation was told in the Princess Trilogy? That his motivation will be brought up again? Of the episodes I've skipped, his motivation could probably only have been talked about in the Princess trilogy or WGFA (unless I really misjudged Taking the stone or beware of dog). Reguadless of what episode it was discussed in, I'm sure it will be brought up again.

I've never said that the people who have posted in this thread don't know what they're talking about. I never said the Princess trilogy couldn't be important, just that I could get the info elsewhere without suffering through the episodes. For all I know WGFA may be important (although I seriously doubt it). I can't really argue an episodes importance, especially not with people who have seen the whole series. I can say whether I liked an episode or not, and thats not really debateable because its my opinion. That doesn't mean others can't like the episodes, or that they can't be important. I don't believe that there is any episode that can't be skipped if you read a summary of what happened, and I'm not lost when it comes to the overall plot at all, I'm just not clear on Scorpius's motivation, and its not that important, he's the bad guy, thats all the motivation he needs, really.