Good? Or Awesome?
My rekindled love of old-school Battlestar Galactica has got me thinking of the difference between things that are "good" versus things that are "awesome".
There is a difference. Something can be objectively very good: well written, brilliantly characterized, beautifully drawn or acted depending on the medium, with remarkably creative plots.
I would say examples of this would be things like Farscape or new Battlestar Galactica or maybe even Brubaker's Captain America.
Being "good" doesn't necessarily mean everyone has to like it, of course, but usually even the people who don't like it can appreciate that there's a great deal of skill involved in the craftsmanship.
Now, "awesome" is a different kettle of fish. "Awesome" is remarkably subjective. It's that quality when you watch a tv show, read a comic, and just find yourself going "Whoa" and grinning like a madman while your brain fries.
"Awesome" is not really related to quality. It CAN be a good product, but usually, it's not. There are good parts and gaping flaws and often times suck tremendously. But for whatever reason, you find yourself adoring them. Often because of those flaws.
For me, old school Galactica is Awesome. So is Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD for that matter. Or that old Justice League movie starring the JLI folks.
You don't find something "Awesome" despite its flaws. You find it Awesome because of them. The ultimate of guilty pleasures. It's everything perfect and insane and nonsensical and wonderful and just plain fun.
And the truth is, while I enjoy good quality entertainment, if I get a choice, I will usually take "Awesome" over "good" any day. I'm like that.
There is a difference. Something can be objectively very good: well written, brilliantly characterized, beautifully drawn or acted depending on the medium, with remarkably creative plots.
I would say examples of this would be things like Farscape or new Battlestar Galactica or maybe even Brubaker's Captain America.
Being "good" doesn't necessarily mean everyone has to like it, of course, but usually even the people who don't like it can appreciate that there's a great deal of skill involved in the craftsmanship.
Now, "awesome" is a different kettle of fish. "Awesome" is remarkably subjective. It's that quality when you watch a tv show, read a comic, and just find yourself going "Whoa" and grinning like a madman while your brain fries.
"Awesome" is not really related to quality. It CAN be a good product, but usually, it's not. There are good parts and gaping flaws and often times suck tremendously. But for whatever reason, you find yourself adoring them. Often because of those flaws.
For me, old school Galactica is Awesome. So is Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD for that matter. Or that old Justice League movie starring the JLI folks.
You don't find something "Awesome" despite its flaws. You find it Awesome because of them. The ultimate of guilty pleasures. It's everything perfect and insane and nonsensical and wonderful and just plain fun.
And the truth is, while I enjoy good quality entertainment, if I get a choice, I will usually take "Awesome" over "good" any day. I'm like that.
posted by kalinara @ 12:11 AM
6 Comments:
At June 10, 2008 2:42 AM,
LurkerWithout said…
Things that are awesome without needing to be good:
Movies with cannibals and crazed Ren Faire rejects and exploding gimps.
Japanese films where giant rubber monsters beat on each other. Especially if one is a giant turtle.
Comics with talking dogs.
Watching someone do a moonsault off the third floor balcony.
Guitar Wolf.
Giant robots. And the fact that chicks dig giant robots.
Muppets. Even more so, Space Muppets.
Bruce Campbell.
At June 10, 2008 3:43 AM,
James Ashelford said…
Good- The new Flash Gordon TV show. Good effects, good actors, good script.
Awesome- the 80s Flash Gordon film, mainly because of Brian Blessed who is apparently working off a different script from everyone else.
Also, new Doctor Who cannot beat 1960s Doctor Who, which was made on a budget of three pounds fifty a week and so quickly you get fluffed lines like:
"If you'd brought your shoes you could have lent her hers." or "Very possibly, but I'm not a mountain goat and I prefer walking to any day and I hate climbing!"
At June 10, 2008 8:36 AM,
Rich said…
Awesome: The Flash TV series, anything with Bruce Campbell, the Hasselhoff Nick Fury movie.
At June 10, 2008 10:39 AM,
SallyP said…
It's true. This is why Guy Gardner:Warrior, was actually pretty terrible, and yet still completely AWESOME.
Just like Coco Puffs.
At June 10, 2008 7:08 PM,
ShellyS said…
I didn't even like the original Battlestar Galactica when it first aired. I assume that's what you mean by "old-school" BG? I watched it, but it was no Star Trek. And it wasn't even close to the bizarre-ness of Space: 1999.
I don't know if I use "awesome" the same way you seem to be using it. I've called some things awesome, and yes, they're typically things that made me smile and maybe go "Whoa," but they're momentary things, individual items like photos. A whole comic or a tv series? Nah. Those are just good, great, wonderful. :)
At June 10, 2008 9:32 PM,
Anonymous said…
Take for instance things that are Awesome to me.
Kingdom Come
Namor the Sub-Mariner (Under any writer)
Mallets (the physical item)
Aquaman
Witchblade Manga
Judd Winick's "Titans"
Peter Tomsai's "Nightwing"
Jeph Loeb's "Superman/Batman"
That list is so far apart and different but all awesome.
In retrospect I'm a strange man.
Post a Comment
<< Home