Sex sells, but does romance make a better story?

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Gemini1999

You know, I get tired of hearing the phrase "sex sells". Sells what? To whom? What kind of an audience? An even a bigger question - why? Storytelling and moviemaking got along just fine until 30-40 years ago with leaving us at the bedroom door and to our imaginations as to what happens next. I have friends that always say "Where's the (insert body part here)??" Why is that really necessary? Does it further plot? Not really - it's pure titallation to my mind. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude or anything. I just get tired of hearing the same old excuses like "times are changing" and so on as an excuse for letting TV producers and filmmakers turn it into a free-for-all just to make a buck.

I recently heard (or read) someone say that "today's audiences are more sophisticated". Sophisticated? How is it sophisticated to want more "realistic" violence, bad language, naked bodies and sex acts in our entertainment? I think that society is actually taking a big slide and the entertainment industry is making money off of it at the same time by encouraging it and catering to the "worst' part of some people.

I remember when NYPD Blue started on ABC a number of years ago and it was heralded as "quality" TV show. The big deal over the show was the fact that you could get to see David Caruso's "not so attractive naked butt" on TV - and this was on a channel that is owned by Disney! What's "ABC" supposed to stand for? The "A**- Bearing-Channel"?

Sex may sell, but it's working on me... While I can deal with a bit of nudity now and then if the scene really "demands" it, the more graphic things get, the less I want to watch TV or go to a movie.

Okay....that was exhausting - I've had it on my mind since this thread started. I hope it didn't sound like rambling!

Best,
Bryan

Your thoughts are very insightful Bryan ......I wish you'd post more often

[QUOTE=Gemini1999]
I recently heard (or read) someone say that "today's audiences are more sophisticated". Sophisticated? How is it sophisticated to want more "realistic" violence, bad language, naked bodies and sex acts in our entertainment? I think that society is actually taking a big slide and the entertainment industry is making money off of it at the same time by encouraging it and catering to the "worst' part of some people. ---- End Quote ---

You hit the nail on the head. I think we need to replace the word sophisticated to actually mean vulgar or low brow. As media reaches a more mass audience it caters to the least eduacted and crudest among us. When the written word was limited to a class of scribes or an upper class in a mainly illiterate world we ended up with the Greek, Latin, or Renaissance classics. In the early days of television, TV catered to the middle to upper class Americans who could afford to own a television. Now that everyone in America has a TV we are seeing a return of the kind of fare that has enraptured the low brow audiences in former days. The gratuitous violence and sex on TV today is little more than a modern version of the spectacle the uneducated masses demanded at public hangings, executions, bear baiting, gladiatorial sport, and the like.

An interesting thing to remember is that most people who went to the Globe Theatre in Old England went to see the bear baiting not Shakespeare! Nothing has changed.

[Boomer65]

Originally Posted by Gemini1999

How is it sophisticated to want more "realistic" violence, bad language, naked bodies and sex acts in our entertainment?

Realistically, police don’t talk/act like those of Hawaii 5-0 or Adam 12. Realistically, families aren’t like the Brady Bunch or have fathers like Bill Cosby – if you can show me one I’ll show you some severely repressed children who will most likely grow up to be the next Tommy Lee or Kurt Cobain.

IMO, dancing around the obvious can be just as annoying as the unnecessary nude/sex scene. I admit, I liked it when the lead character on FX’s The Shield called his captain an “a$$hole”. That was REAL but more importantly, it fit. It wasn’t there just to shock the audience.

While I can deal with a bit of nudity now and then if the scene really "demands" it, the more graphic things get, the less I want to watch TV or go to a movie.

The problem is that the copycats see that these shows, like NYPD Blue, are popular and mistakenly think that it’s BECAUSE of the nudity and language. So they try to duplicate the success simply by throwing in a bunch of nudity and language failing to realize that NYPD Blue was good because it had good acting and good writing first instead of last.

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Boomer65

Realistically, police don’t talk/act like those of Hawaii 5-0 or Adam 12. Realistically, families aren’t like the Brady Bunch or have fathers like Bill Cosby – if you can show me one I’ll show you some severely repressed children who will most likely grow up to be the next Tommy Lee or Kurt Cobain.

IMO, dancing around the obvious can be just as annoying as the unnecessary nude/sex scene. I admit, I liked it when the lead character on FX’s The Shield called his captain an “a$$hole”. That was REAL but more importantly, it fit. It wasn’t there just to shock the audience.


The problem is that the copycats see that these shows, like NYPD Blue, are popular and mistakenly think that it’s BECAUSE of the nudity and language. So they try to duplicate the success simply by throwing in a bunch of nudity and language failing to realize that NYPD Blue was good because it had good acting and good writing first instead of last.

You're right alot of people don't have Parent's like Lorne Greene, Marcos Welby or Bill cosby for that matter.

But that doesn't mean that everyone wants to see people being abused, used,
and discarded on TV ..............

NYPD was popular before the NUDE scenes. It was popular due to a excellent
plot line of course as the nude scenes appeared .............I switched the channels
and never watched it again.

If I want to see someone NUDE I'll look at my husband ...........I'm not into that
sort of thing on TV and I won't let my children watch it either.

[shiningstar]

[QUOTE=antelope526]

Originally Posted by Gemini1999

I recently heard (or read) someone say that "today's audiences are more sophisticated". Sophisticated? How is it sophisticated to want more "realistic" violence, bad language, naked bodies and sex acts in our entertainment? I think that society is actually taking a big slide and the entertainment industry is making money off of it at the same time by encouraging it and catering to the "worst' part of some people. ---- End Quote ---

You hit the nail on the head. I think we need to replace the word sophisticated to actually mean vulgar or low brow. As media reaches a more mass audience it caters to the least eduacted and crudest among us. When the written word was limited to a class of scribes or an upper class in a mainly illiterate world we ended up with the Greek, Latin, or Renaissance classics. In the early days of television, TV catered to the middle to upper class Americans who could afford to own a television. Now that everyone in America has a TV we are seeing a return of the kind of fare that has enraptured the low brow audiences in former days. The gratuitous violence and sex on TV today is little more than a modern version of the spectacle the uneducated masses demanded at public hangings, executions, bear baiting, gladiatorial sport, and the like.

An interesting thing to remember is that most people who went to the Globe Theatre in Old England went to see the bear baiting not Shakespeare! Nothing has changed.

Whether or not I agree with you Antelope .......I enjoy reading what you have to say. Keep it up.

[Boomer65]

But that doesn't mean that everyone wants to see people being abused, used,
and discarded on TV

True but I think that audiences have, generally, outgrown the sanitized programming of a couple of decades ago. They want to see more realism in television. And yes, some networks have tried to attract viewers simply by offering shows designed to titillate but thankfully most fail. I think the recent Skin series which seemed to be ONLY about sex was cancelled after only a few weeks.

NYPD was popular before the NUDE scenes.

And Law & Order remains popular after more than a decade without having to resort to nudity, etc. I’d say there’s a fairly balanced mix of programming out there designed to suit everyone’s tastes. Thankfully, the more explicit stuff is aired after 10 pm (Superbowl Half-time show aside :upchuck: ).

Originally Posted by shiningstar

NYPD was popular before the NUDE scenes. It was popular due to a excellent
plot line of course as the nude scenes appeared .............I switched the channels
and never watched it again.

That brings us to a crucial set of questions: 1) How many potential viewers are out there who are teetering on the brink, and who WILL watch the series only if it continues to have blatant sex in it? 2) How many potential viewers are out there who are already favorably inclined and who already want to watch the show, but who WON'T if it continues to have blatant sex in it? I know for sure of one. Are there more?

Now that I've had twelve weeks to think things through, I have come to realize several things more clearly:
- When I first saw the ads for the upcomign mini, I was filled with eager anticipation. Why? Because I liked the original show. For all its hokiness and complete disregard for real science, it was FUN to watch. I liked the SHIP, I liked the CHARACTERS, and I liked the PREMISE. A remake seemed like a wonderful thing.
- When I actually saw the mini, I liked it. A lot. I wanted the series to get greenlighted (greennlit?) BUT. . .
- On deeper reflection, the mini had some weaknesses that worry me. Some of them are weaknesses in the story, making me fear that it will collapse the way Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea did when it degenerated into a "monster of the week" show. That is to say, weak plots leading to desperation leading to abandonment of real effort to attain quality, and settling instead for what shocks, titillates, and scares. "Voyage" started out with a lot of potential, then it went down the toilet. BG2003 could very easily go that route. And the blatant sex would ruin it for me. I still like the SHIP, I still like the PREMISE, but I am not yet certain about the CHARACTERS, and if Baltar and 6 keep carrying on the way they did in the beginning, then I will turn it off.

That's the bottom line, isn't it? Will I watch it, or will I not watch it? I am predisposed to watch it. But if the sex doesn't get dialed WAY back, I won't.

End of line.

Regular television can only push things so far in the sex area because if all you care about is sex you can buy or rent all the porno you want. Since the sex on TV will never equal porno they have to keep some plot or loose their audience.

Violence is another story. Television is still seeing how much they can push this. If the FCC didn't stop them we would see all kinds of brutality. If it was publically acceptable we would still fill stadiums to watch the gladiators. Many recent movies like "Saving Private Ryan (A movie I liked very much)" and "Gladiator" show just how violent things can get. Now we can watch killings that are even "better" than the real thing.

Audiences haven't matured. We are just commercially back to giving the public what it has always wanted, blood lust and sex to fill the basest of curiosity and desire.

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Boomer65

True but I think that audiences have, generally, outgrown the sanitized programming of a couple of decades ago. They want to see more realism in television. And yes, some networks have tried to attract viewers simply by offering shows designed to titillate but thankfully most fail. I think the recent Skin series which seemed to be ONLY about sex was cancelled after only a few weeks.


And Law & Order remains popular after more than a decade without having to resort to nudity, etc. I’d say there’s a fairly balanced mix of programming out there designed to suit everyone’s tastes. Thankfully, the more explicit stuff is aired after 10 pm (Superbowl Half-time show aside :upchuck: ).

Yeah too bad the authorities weren't smart enough to arrest her and
her COHORTS right then for indecent exposure and contributing to
the deliquency of Minors ...............

if it had been a NONcelebrity then that's what WOULD have happened.

[Rowan]

Originally Posted by Gemini1999

You know, I get tired of hearing the phrase "sex sells". Sells what? To whom? What kind of an audience? An even a bigger question - why?


Okay....that was exhausting - I've had it on my mind since this thread started. I hope it didn't sound like rambling!

Best,
Bryan

not at all allways good to get these kinds of things off our chests!


Hey Gemini (one of my favorite zodiac signs btw)
I've always understood it to mean that it "gets peoples attention" just an observation if you look at the board were this thread is posted and subtract the "stickys", and look, at the hits for each thread (I just stuck with the first page) 12 out of 47 threads rate higher than this one and most of those threads are considerably older than this one. The word Sex is in the title of this thread. We are curious by nature and wether or not we like what we see when we get there is irrelevant the thing is we looked, and that is all the advertizers are looking for. With regards to advertising; in school they explained the target audience is the person portrayed in the add. Advertizers must really have faith in this kind of advertising one has but to spend a few minutes fliping through a Maxim magazine to see how advertising has digressed by 30 yrs in their portaryal of women.(as if the whole womens lib thing never took place)

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Gaelen

not at all allways good to get these kinds of things off our chests!


Hey Gemini (one of my favorite zodiac signs btw)
I've always understood it to mean that it "gets peoples attention" just an observation if you look at the board were this thread is posted and subtract the "stickys", and look, at the hits for each thread (I just stuck with the first page) 12 out of 47 threads rate higher than this one and most of those threads are considerably older than this one. The word Sex is in the title of this thread. We are curious by nature and wether or not we like what we see when we get there is irrelevant the thing is we looked, and that is all the advertizers are looking for. With regards to advertising; in school they explained the target audience is the person portrayed in the add. Advertizers must really have faith in this kind of advertising one has but to spend a few minutes fliping through a Maxim magazine to see how advertising has digressed by 30 yrs in there portaryal of women.(as if the whole womens lib thing never took place)

I think you've made some very good points here ............keep posting.

Let me rephrase something:

"I am not yet certain about the CHARACTERS, and if Baltar and 6 keep carrying on the way they did in the beginning, then I will turn it off."

No, poor choice of words. Their conduct is indeed important to the story. I mean, if the writers insist on showing too much of what actually goes on. . . then I will turn it off. Just like I did 7th Heaven when they morphed it from a good family show into a soap opera about a dysfunctional family.

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Thomasbombadil

Let me rephrase something:

"I am not yet certain about the CHARACTERS, and if Baltar and 6 keep carrying on the way they did in the beginning, then I will turn it off."

No, poor choice of words. Their conduct is indeed important to the story. I mean, if the writers insist on showing too much of what actually goes on. . .

I truelly think there is a way to do that ........without GOING OVERBOARD as
they did in the mini.

[N~still]

I am not opposed to sex in a story and nudity because well d'oh most of the time ya can't have one without the other; except for quick gropes but to me they don't count; but just sex for sex; go rent porn or watch the premium channels after 9pm> I think it's a dangerous trend myself, because it's shows we have our mind on the flesh and not on what we can possibly accomplish.

I'm a woman and like Gaelen mentioned in another thread we want the real thang, not flowers and candy or gifts but "decent" guys. I guess my ideal guy would buy me a washing machine if i needed it. We don't want frilly men but we don't want testorone filled machines either; human and open to change, Though a guy in a friily apron with nothing else....... hmmmmm :laugh: Naw, I wouldn't do it.

I want a story i can sink my teeth into and not the mundane soap-opera diatribe we get and not Harlequin~ish; they annoy me. Dang it... i want that balance..... strong story with actual diversity in characters; a little space science, a little battle scene, some kickin' effects. Can they do that? The mini started it but not enough diversity. I as a woman would like to see less of the Gaius arc and more of the interplay btn bridge mates and of course the maintenance crew!

[unowhoandwhy]

Originally Posted by Darth Marley

Maybe you should be more specific about which Vulcan first officer you like to see naked.

Spock! I say Spock! I was negative 6 years old when the first Star Trek aired, but he was my very first crush when I saw him in reruns and on "In Search Of..."

As for romance vs. sex: I don't object to a little skin (especially not when it's HOT skin! (oh shallow me!)) but only when it's is an integral part of the story. The new Cylons use sex as a weapon or a tool (or whatever) so that made sense. Although, I was totally uninterested in seeing either character naked, not my type. But, my favorite scene in the mini involving sex and/or romance was the Tyrol/Boomer reunion. That affected me far more deeply than when they just ripped their clothes off and did the deed.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that sex is OK as long as it makes sense within the storyline and if there's love, but not if it's just wild monkey alley cat type action.

Here's another thought: in TOS, religiously-grounded monogamy played a highly important role. Getting "sealed" I believe they called it. Essentially, getting married.

Monogamous, permanent, one-man-one-woman marriage is still the best way to go, both for individuals and for society as a whole. There is a good reason why there has been such an increase in poverty amoung children in the past thirty years--more unwed mothers raising children on their own. Marriage, in the actual world that we inhabit, is primarily about children first and property/economic rights second. Personal pleasure and fulfillment ranks a distant third at best.

Even if it cuts back on the hot close-ups of writhing Cylons, BG03 will still do women a disservice if it continues with the currently-popular philosophy of Hugh Hefner and Sex in the City. Even tastefully-done bedroom scenes between unmarried partners only reinforces the destructive idea that marriage is OK if it's your cup of tea, but it's purely a matter of personal preference and choice.

Give this point to TOS, unless Ron Moore shifts direction from what we saw in the mini.

Thus far the people involved in non-married sexual relations in the mini are either ruined in the case of Baltar or possibly being used by a cylon in the case of Tyrol. In cut scenes the results of such activity is viewed negatively by Tyrol's compatriots and the source of COL Tigh's alcoholism. Thus far the message is unmarried sex leads to personal destruction. I hardly call this the mantra of the masses. I think we are a bit to angry at the scene to get the scenes message. The only pure love shown in the mini thus far was between Lee, Kara, and Commander Adama. None of it was sexual and all brought a positive result to the characters involved.

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by N~still

I am not opposed to sex in a story and nudity because well d'oh most of the time ya can't have one without the other; except for quick gropes but to me they don't count; but just sex for sex; go rent porn or watch the premium channels after 9pm> I think it's a dangerous trend myself, because it's shows we have our mind on the flesh and not on what we can possibly accomplish.

I'm a woman and like Gaelen mentioned in another thread we want the real thang, not flowers and candy or gifts but "decent" guys. I guess my ideal guy would buy me a washing machine if i needed it. We don't want frilly men but we don't want testorone filled machines either; human and open to change, Though a guy in a friily apron with nothing else....... hmmmmm :laugh: Naw, I wouldn't do it.

I want a story i can sink my teeth into and not the mundane soap-opera diatribe we get and not Harlequin~ish; they annoy me. Dang it... i want that balance..... strong story with actual diversity in characters; a little space science, a little battle scene, some kickin' effects. Can they do that? The mini started it but not enough diversity. I as a woman would like to see less of the Gaius arc and more of the interplay btn bridge mates and of course the maintenance crew!

Well written N~still ..........keep posting

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by unowhoandwhy

Spock! I say Spock! Is was negative 6 years old when the first Star Trek aired, but he was my very first crush when I saw him in reruns and on "In Search Of..."

As for romance vs. sex: I don't object to a little skin (especially not when it's HOT skin! (oh shallow me!)) but only when it's is an integral part of the story. The new Cylons use sex as a weapon or a tool (or whatever) so that made sense. Although, I was totally uninterested in seeing either character naked, not my type. But, my favorite scene in the mini involving sex and/or romance was the Tyrol/Boomer reunion. That affected me far more deeply than when they just ripped their clothes off and did the deed.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that sex is OK as long as it makes sense within the storyline and if there's love, but not if it's just wild monkey alley cat type action.

Love the Avatar is that a German short hair pointer?

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by antelope526

Thus far the people involved in non-married sexual relations in the mini are either ruined in the case of Baltar or possibly being used by a cylon in the case of Tyrol. In cut scenes the results of such activity is viewed negatively by Tyrol's compatriots and the source of COL Tigh's alcoholism. Thus far the message is unmarried sex leads to personal destruction. I hardly call this the mantra of the masses. I think we are a bit to angry at the scene to get the scenes message. The only pure love shown in the mini thus far was between Lee, Kara, and Commander Adama. None of it was sexual and all brought a positive result to the characters involved.

Excellent points Antelope.

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Thomasbombadil

Here's another thought: in TOS, religiously-grounded monogamy played a highly important role. Getting "sealed" I believe they called it. Essentially, getting married.

Monogamous, permanent, one-man-one-woman marriage is still the best way to go, both for individuals and for society as a whole. There is a good reason why there has been such an increase in poverty amoung children in the past thirty years--more unwed mothers raising children on their own. Marriage, in the actual world that we inhabit, is primarily about children first and property/economic rights second. Personal pleasure and fulfillment ranks a distant third at best.

Even if it cuts back on the hot close-ups of writhing Cylons, BG03 will still do women a disservice if it continues with the currently-popular philosophy of Hugh Hefner and Sex in the City. Even tastefully-done bedroom scenes between unmarried partners only reinforces the destructive idea that marriage is OK if it's your cup of tea, but it's purely a matter of personal preference and choice.

Give this point to TOS, unless Ron Moore shifts direction from what we saw in the mini.

Well written Thomas ..............

[Rowan]

I’ve loved many men in my life but never found one I wanted to marry, or raise children with. I can’t imagine going my whole life never bonding with someone on a physical level, just because I’m not married. Frankly I don’t know if I could have lived like that. And if it was my only choice then I would probably have married someone made his and my life miserable and to what end? And what about those who are sterile for various reasons if marriage is about children first and they can’t have any then what is their motivation for marriage?
In my opinion the increase in poverty and children has nothing to do with whether women marry but that they are alone to raise children. There are plenty of women out there who did marry and are now divorced and trying to raise children on their own. These women have difficulty because generally they don’t have either the same level of education, income, or opportunities that their husbands did, because they got married young or stayed home to care for the children and were not working on developing their career. Added to this is that many ex-husbands fall behind in their payments, wont or can’t meet their financial commitment to their children. (I understand that it’s difficult for them too, having to start over or an ex-wife who likes to make life hell for them, or just the emotional anguish of being separated from their kids). Poverty and children is also impacted by our lack of education with regards to young people and contraception, and government policies and lack of social support and programmes. It’s a highly complex issue. Your description of marriage sounds a little more like duty, than something enjoyable. My understanding from what you have written is (correct me if I’m wrong) get married, have kids, get property, be financially stable, then have pleasure? For some people that would mean a lifetime without considering personal pleasure and for them that is the only pleasure life holds. Finances prevent them from pursuing other venues, except maybe drugs and alcohol for the purpose of escaping their pleasure less lives.
I seem to recall Starbuck being quite the womanizer in TOS I was under the impression he was caught cheating on his girls and he wasn’t married and I ‘m sure he wasn’t waiting for marriage either!

With regards to doing a disservice, what about the men? When I talk to my girlfriend it’s the guys who drag their feet when it comes to commitment not the women. So lets see more honourable men being portrayed, gentlemen desiring commitment and waiting for marriage, not pressuring the women to jump in bed with them hhhmmm let me think where have I seen that ?

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by Gaelen

I’ve loved many men in my life but never found one I wanted to marry, or raise children with. I can’t imagine going my whole life never bonding with someone on a physical level, just because I’m not married. Frankly I don’t know if I could have lived like that. And if it was my only choice then I would probably have married someone made his and my life miserable and to what end? And what about those who are sterile for various reasons if marriage is about children first and they can’t have any then what is there motivation for marriage?
In my opinion the increase in poverty and children has nothing to do with whether women marry but that they are alone to raise children. There are plenty of women out there who did marry and are now divorced and trying to raise children on their own. These women have difficulty because generally they don’t have either the same level of education, income, or opportunities that their husbands did, because they got married young or stayed home to care for the children and were not working on developing their career. Added to this is that many ex-husbands fall behind in their payments, wont or can’t meet their financial commitment to their children. (I understand that it’s difficult for them too, having to start over or an ex-wife who likes to make life hell for them, or just the emotional anguish of being separated form their kids). Poverty and children is also impacted by our lack of education with regards to young people and contraception, and government policies and lack of social support and programmes. It’s a highly complex issue. Your description of marriage sounds a little more like duty, than something enjoyable. My understanding from what you have written is (correct me if I’m wrong) get married, have kids, get property, be financially stable, then have pleasure? For some people that would mean a lifetime without considering personal pleasure and for them that is the only pleasure life holds for them. Finances prevent them from pursuing other venues, except maybe drugs and alcohol for the purpose of escaping their pleasure less lives.
I seem to recall Starbuck being quite the womanizer in TOS I was under the impression he was caught cheating on his girls and he wasn’t married and I ‘m sure he wasn’t waiting for marriage either!

With regards to doing a disservice, what about the men? When I talk to my girlfriend it’s the guys who drag their feet when it comes to commitment not the women. So lets see more honourable men being portrayed, gentlemen desiring commitment and waiting for marriage, not pressuring the women to jump in bed with them hhhmmm let me think where have I seen that ?

Gaelen you're still young. In my case I waited. I decided rather then marrying
simply because my family wanted me to marry and have babies; I decided to
wait for someone who would love me for me. My mother threw a fit about my
decision ...............as a matter of fact everyone 'I' knew did as well ..........but
I stuck by my decision to WAIT for someone who would love and respect me
as I did him.

I have no regrets about that. My husband loves me for who I am and not
for who 'he' wants me to be. We've been married for 11 years now and no
'major' marriage crises has occured. We have two little girls who know that
we love each other and that we love them and as long as God wills it .........
we'll be together.

And as for my husband ............he wanted to marry me after the fourth date
after I confessed that I loved him on the third date ............I made him wait
for one year. I'm glad that I didn't rush into the relationship. I'm glad that I
waited ......... and he now admits that he was glad that I made him wait that
one year too. There are honorable men out there ............you just have to be
willing to WAIT for the 'right' one.........because waiting for someone who will
love you for who you are and not for who they want you to be is worth more
then all the gold in the world.

[shiningstar]

Oh by the way .........I didn't bond 'physically' with a guy until I was 31 ..............and yes
when I finally did ................he already was my husband to be ...............{of 11 years so far
actually }

I have no regrets waiting so long to be with someone.

I think TV likes the chase of romance and often they confuse it for sex. Marriage and the happiness that goes with it, like watching your little kids grow up is just too boring for the one hour show. I think that is why everyone loves I dream of Jeanie...until they are married, the Nanny...until they are married, Who's the Boss...until they are married.

The story of Apollo and Serena was the same way. It was a beautiful romance of an educated woman by a caring noble military officer but once they were married for a few episodes they put a lasar shot in Serena's back, starting clearing Boxey from the script, and sent doe eyed Sheba to cry on Apollo.

I watch Charmed with my wife. They spent a long time romancing and marrying two of the witches (Phoebe and Piper) but it didn't take them long afterwards to kill the one husband and banish the second.

Maybe we should cheer for a quick marriage of Lee and Kara. Then Kara might get her lasar in the back sooner rather than later!

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by antelope526

I think TV likes the chase of romance and often they confuse it for sex. Marriage and the happiness that goes with it, like watching your little kids grow up is just too boring for the one hour show. I think that is why everyone loves I dream of Jeanie...until they are married, the Nanny...until they are married, Who's the Boss...until they are married.

The story of Apollo and Serena was the same way. It was a beautiful romance of an educated woman by a caring noble military officer but once they were married for a few episodes they put a lasar shot in Serena's back, starting clearing Boxey from the script, and sent doe eyed Sheba to cry on Apollo.

I watch Charmed with my wife. They spent a long time romancing and marrying two of the witches (Phoebe and Piper) but it didn't take them long afterwards to kill the one husband and banish the second.

Maybe we should cheer for a quick marriage of Lee and Kara. Then Kara might get her lasar in the back before sooner rather than later!

I thought you 'liked' Kara Thrace.

[Rowan]

ouch antelope poor old Starbuck thanks fo the laugh though. it's true its the tease that works best on tv.

Shinigstar you warm my heart with your story. But i'm saying I'm not the kind of girl who can wait, I don't want to wait, I like that part and need that part of life too much to give it up.

Originally Posted by shiningstar

I thought you 'liked' Kara Thrace.

I like the mini but I wasn't very thrilled with the Kara Thrace character. In her defense I also did not like the Sheba character in TOS when they first introduced her. They were both arrogant and trying too hard to act like a man.

In the case of Sheba they toned her down very quickly and her character a few episodes later was nothing like the Sheba of Living Legend. In the later episodes she would easily cry and seemed a bit weak and dependent on Apollo.

I hope they tone down Kara Thrace rapidly also. Her part when thinking about Zak and Apollo almost redeemed her. Just when I was finally warming up to her however she had that unneeded scene with COL Tigh near the end.

I think Kara Thrace has a lot of potential to either become a good character or conversely to destroy the series. I am hoping for the best. My brother in England just saw the mini recently. I asked him the other day what he thought about it. All he could say was "I couldn't stand that Starbuck girl."

[Dawg]

Originally Posted by antelope526

My brother in England just saw the mini recently. I asked him the other day what he thought about it. All he could say was "I couldn't stand that Starbuck girl."

I see your family is not entirely bereft of taste....



*Did I say that out loud?*

:confused: :uhdrop:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I am
Dawg

Originally Posted by Dawg

I see your family is not entirely bereft of taste....



*Did I say that out loud?*

:confused: :uhdrop:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I am
Dawg

You make me laugh! I don't know whether I should laugh or cry.