quote:

---

It seems that most of OSC's public, represented in this forum, is more interested in characters like Peter than in characters like Petra.

---

This is a fallacy. Any audience will respond to a story well-told, with heart. Finding the heart of a movie-going audience is something altogether different from finding that of a SF-centric one.

</H-wood off>

fallow
 

---

Posted by Kabederlin (Member # 6304) on :
 
Man, did I get lost somewhere in all that or what...
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
:stupid:

Man, you guys don't have an "I'm with stupid" smiley here
 

---

Posted by julian (Member # 6540) on :
 
fallow:

"Any audience will respond to a story well-told, with heart"

I don't know... I still think that doesn't exist a story with an universal audience, even well-told stories (and OSC stories are VERY well-told IMHO)

But think about this. Some critics give 1 point --very bad--, some give five --master piece-- to the same film. The Lord of the Rings trilogy bored me to death (I think that the normal, not the extended version of each one was 1 hour too long). Each time I say this I have to run for my life, because most of my friends try to kill me.

Was Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ well-told and with heart? I think so, but a lot of people don't agree with that.

It's not so evident for me that the inexistence of the universal audience is a fallacy.
 

---

Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
 
But everyone loves monty python!

j/k

The reason that your friends run after you when you say that is because the extended editions are 1 hour too short. The only reason you got bored was because you're raised in a 2 hour movie world...
 

---

Posted by julian (Member # 6540) on :
 
ArCHeR:

>>you're raised in a 2 hour movie world

I don't think so. Spartacus, Gone with the wind, The Schindler list, Tarkoski's Solaris, The ten commandments and others didn't seem long to me and I found some one hour films boring. I didn't agree with the cuts made to "Love actually" in order to make it a two hours movie.

And I love Monty Python but, believe it or not, some of the LOTR lovers that ask for my neck hate Monty Pyhton.

Please, don't run after me. I don't deny that LOTR are good films. My point is that they are not good for me. An example: for me "Return of the King" ends with everybody honoring the hobbits after Aragorn's coronation and all the scenes that come after this are completely unnecesary. But this is not a LOTR thread. It's possible to discuss this, if you want, in another one.

My point was that even good things, even master pieces, are not good for everybody. Different souls have different sensibilities.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Considering Petra wasn't supposed to be that big of a character to begin with, I'm grateful for the amount of play she's gotten. I have to say a book only about Bean, Achilles, and Peter would be... well, I just can't imagine it. Not that it couldn't exist.
 

---

Posted by julian (Member # 6540) on :
 
Thanks, Pooka. I'm also grateful for the amount of play she's gotten, enough to give her strength. It happens than Petra is one of my favourite OSC characters.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I would rather hear less about Bean and Petra and more about Peter and his folks.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Julian,

Good points. Though, I didn't mean to equate "respond" (or response) with positive reception.



fallow
 

---

Posted by julian (Member # 6540) on :
 
fallow:

Now we agree. The amount of positive reaction is what changes, though some responses may be quite small if the author sensibility doesn't connect with yours.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
julian,

thanks for helping me clarify a few thoughts knocking around in my noggin.

'sensibility' is a little vague in my mind. i'd been thinking about 'accessibility' after your first post. that, I think I understand. by sensibility you mean 'taste'?

fallow
 

---

Posted by Pepek (Member # 3773) on :
 
Peter needs his own book.. grar...

-Sir Montague
 

---

Posted by julian (Member # 6540) on :
 
fallow

Yes, I meant taste, I suppose. Sorry. Remember that I'm a spanish speaker. So don't be surprised if sometimes I don't choice the best words.

Julian
 

---

Posted by julian (Member # 6540) on :
 
fallow:

Thinking about it, "taste" is not the word.

Let me intend to explain what I mean. Having a 18 years marriage and being the father of a teenager, family relations are closely related with my personal experience, and I'm very "touched" by stories about that subject. So, "Speaker for the dead" and "Lost boys" go deeper in my inside than, for example, "Ender's game". I don't mind to confess that I even cry with the first two books, but not with Ender's Game (that I like very much, but it's not MY book).

Sensibility? Taste? Closeness to personal experience? I don't know. But is that what I mean with the idea that nobody speaks for everybody.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Julian,

I think I get it. You mean something along the lines of "resonance". Something "rings true" or touches on something personally identifiable?

I'm not sure that's so different from mere "taste" though it sounds a little more "fancy".

"Sensibility" seems a little different from what you describe.

interesting.


fallow

[ June 17, 2004, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: fallow ]
 

---