#i saw that the what if episode implemented an idea i had with steve being sucked into the stone and thrust into 2012 but with peggy! | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

anonymousfiction211 · 3 years

Text

Loki’s Game: 1

Summary: You are working at the Avenger compound as a ICT and security specialist. Everyone thinks you are doing a good job, but you procrastinate a lot. You lie effortlessly, or so you think. When no-one other than the God of Lies and Mischief, Loki joins the team. He quickly discovers that you are lying and decides to take advantage of that.

Word Count: 2.498 words

Warnings: No smut in this chapter, but definitely in the upcoming chapters. Overall story warning: dubious consenst, BDSM, forced orgasms, overstimulation, manipulation, angst

A/N: A multiple fic which I started on AO3 and Wattpad. Thougth maybe some of you will like it as well. Next chapters will be sunday.

The alarm of your mobile started to ring. The screen showed it was 08.10 a.m. That leaves 20 minutes to get dressed and go downstairs. Almost finished you thought while typing on your laptop. You typed like your life depended on it. With your work finally finished you put on the clothes you had laid out and quickly brushed your teeth. Why do I always do this to myself? You had a month to make a new security plan, but you started a week before the deadline. The plan wasn’t bad, but it could be more detailed. Now you had to go to Tony and Steve, explaining your not-so-detailed-plan. On top of that, you were tired. You had set an alarm in the middle of the night, just so you had something to show this morning.

How, you did not know, but you made it through your presentation. Steve was supportive. Tony and he decided you could have more time to work out the details. Luckily, the presentation was recorded. When they started to ask questions, you made up answers on the spot. You now had to implement those answers for your next deadline. So, they didn’t figure out that you lied to them. They gave you two weeks. This time, I am going to start on time! Sitting at your desk you were distracted, checking social media, and watching YouTube. Suddenly you got a call from Tony, asking you to come to the living room.

Walking inside you saw that Natasha, Clint, Steve, and Tony were all there. “How is your plan coming together?” Tony asked you. “Fine, it may even be finished before the deadline” you lied. Great, after this you have to get to work. The door opened and Thor walked in. Besides him walked another men you recognized immediately, Loki. “I still think this is a bad idea” Clint said. “I know, but we need him. Thor has vouched for him” Steve commented. Thor had a tense look, Loki was just smirking and looking around. Nobody made eye-contact with him. Tony clapped his hands together “Well.. ehm.. welcome, I guess. I will give you a tour, this is (Y/N) by the way. She will give you security clearance and tell you how to work with Jarvis.” You raised your eyebrow at Tony “What is happening here?”

“Oh, I didn’t tell you. There was some suspicious activity, Loki is here to help. Or so he says. I wanted to tell you, but you were so busy with the new security plan, I didn’t want to disturb you” he said. “Oh, yeah. Super busy, lot of late nights. No problem” you lied. Lots of late nights watching Netflix that was.. you thought. You saw Loki staring at you. “He will be in the room across yours.” he then turned to Loki “Try not to disturb her, she’s one of my best employees and very busy.” You felt yourself blush at the compliment. Loki’s eyes were still fixed on you. You started to feel bad for Tony, he really thought you had been working hard. You were mentally scolding yourself for being so lazy. I will fix it in the next two weeks.

“Plan is almost finished then?” Natasha asked you. You nodded, not wanting to go into much detail of your not-so-detailed-plan. “Great, I need your help next week, think you’ve got the time?” she asked you. Shit, no.. but well, if I work a few all-nighters I have. Who needs sleep anyway? “Yeah of course, I was just telling that the plan will probably be finished before the deadline” you said. “You sure about that?” Loki said in a dry voice. Everyone just stared at him, nobody had expected him to join the conversation. “Back off, Reindeer Games. She knows what she’s doing” Tony said. Loki’s eyes narrowed at you and you looked away to the ground. Thor seemed to notice his brother staring at you “I will join the tour, shall we go now?” he said to Loki and Tony. With that the three of them left. The rest of the team was still discussing how they were feeling about Loki’s presence.

“Where’s Bruce?” Steve asked. “After his last encounter with Loki, he thought it was best to stay in the lab” Natasha told him. Steve smiled at you “I will check on him. Thor or Tony will bring Loki for the security clearance after the tour, call me if you don’t want to be alone with him.” You watched him leave and then left yourself. You sat back down at your desk and started to work on your secret planning. First you listed everything you needed to get done to finish the security plan. Then you made an overview of your time the next two weeks. I should have told Natasha I didn’t have time. With this planning that meant at least two nights you had to work through. You had to plan them accordingly, so nobody would notice how exhausted you were. Luckily, there were two days most of the team would be away. I hate myself for not starting on time. After your planning, your eye caught the Netflix logo on one of your tabs and you decided that you could watch one episode, before starting your long workday.

You were halfway through the episode. “Busy?” a low voice asked you from behind. You jumped from your chair and quickly closed your laptop. Turning around you saw Loki leaning against the wall in the doorway. His posture was casual and relaxed, but you couldn’t help starting to feel like you were in trouble. He walked towards you and you forgot how to breath. He took a seat in the chair across from yours and put his feet on your desk. He was leaning back slightly. His eyes never left yours. His eyes were a beautiful emerald colour, but the gaze they had made you feel like a deer in headlights. Suddenly, you were very aware that if he decided to kill you, he could with a snap of his finger. “Lost your tongue?” he asked. That’s when you realized that you hadn’t answered his question. “No, I’m not busy. You just startled me, that’s all” you said. Your voice sounded a little higher than you had hoped. You took a deep breath and sat back down in your seat.

Loki smirked at you “But I thought you were extremely busy?”. His voice sounded too innocent for the look he was giving you. “W- well.. I- I am. But I- eh.. I meant.. just knock next time you come here.” you stammered. “That didn’t sound convincing at all” he said. You saw a small glint in his eyes, which appeared immediately. “Thor said I should come here for security clearance, so I could walk freely around the building.” “Yeah right, ehm.. a moment please” you said. You started to type on your computer, entering Loki’s clearance. Feeling more nervous every second that passed. Loki was still staring at you. God, I wished he just looked at something else. You started to type faster and began your explanation of Jarvis to him. He cut you off after one sentence and rolled his eyes. “My brother might not know much about your primitive technology, but I do. No need to explain it, little one” You blushed at the nickname. “S- so eh.. you have now clearance and can walk around freely. If there’s nothing else I can do for you..” you didn’t finish the sentence and motioned at the door.

Loki stood up from his chair. Thank god you thought. However, he didn’t walk towards the door. He walked around your desk and stood right behind you. You felt goosebumps starting to form. “W- what are you doing?” you asked him. Your voice trembled. He put one hand on your shoulders and leaned down. His touch froze your whole body. You felt his breath tickle your earlobe. Fuck, he’s hot. Your breath hitched, you were surprised by your own thought. Where did that come from? You heard Loki chuckle in your ear and the first instinct you had was to jump up from your chair. He didn’t let you and held you firm in place with his hand on your shoulder. He is so much stronger than me. You started to panic, not knowing what to do. You sat as still as possible and stared at your screen. The screen was showing your episode on Netflix. “You are not going to finish” he whispered in your ear. “I wonder what Stark thinks of his model employee, wasting her time, his time, everyone’s time. I was surprised they didn’t notice your lies” he put his other hand also on your other shoulder.

You started to breath faster, unable to make up your mind. Running was not an option, and you were unable to speak a word, let alone form a sentence and tell him to fuck off. The sudden image of Loki bending you over your desk and taking you from behind crossed your mind. What the hell? No, not with him. You kept it a secret that you were extremely attracted to dominant men. You were ashamed of it. It felt demeaning to have a man control you like that. Usually, you had strong will-power and were opinionated. In bed with your former partners, you always were on top or in control. “You know, the soldier told me about your new security plan, he was very impressed with your presentation this morning. Did he know you made everything up on the spot?” You didn’t know how he knew that. You lowered your head, staring at the ground. “No” you whispered. Loki stroked his thumb across your collar bone. You took a deep breath, unable to decide if you were fearful of him or turned on by his touch.

You suddenly felt his tongue against your earlobe, flicking it. He started to kiss softly against the top of your neck. Trailing downwards towards your collar bone. His other hand travelled down to your breast. You forgot how to breath again and felt yourself heat up. I should do something. Get away, tell him to stop. But you didn’t move a muscle or say a word. He was massaging your breast and you felt your upper body lean into his touch. Damn.. you thought. This felt so wrong but also so right. “I think I am going to like my stay here” he hummed against your collar bone. The vibration on your skin sends a shot of arousal to your core. He suddenly grabbed your throat and squeezed it to cut off your breathing. “From now on you do as I tell you. One wrong move and I will expose you to Stark, you got that?” He loosened his grip somewhat, but not enough for you to get air. You started to nod as fast as you could. He laughed “If you try to scream or tell anyone about this you will pay.” He then let go of your throat. “Now, be a good girl and get back to work” he whispered in your ear. You were breathing heavily, trying to process everything that just happened. When you looked behind you, you saw that Loki was already gone.

When you caught your breath, you contemplate your options. If you told someone about it, you surely would be fired. Maybe I can tell Steve? He always has my back. But you also lied to Steve a lot, and he was so impressed by your work. Nope, not an option. Maybe quitting? There was no way you would ever find a job you loved so much and paid so well. Plus, you have gotten quite close with most of the members on the team. I could tell Natasha. She might know a way out. But she would surely ask why you hadn’t castrated Loki, or at least tried, when he started to touch you. You couldn’t admit to her that a part, buried deep within you, liked to be treated that way. I could finish my work, and if Loki tries anything again then tell them. They would believe you over the God of Lies after all. And with your work done, Loki couldn’t show any proof of his accusations. The only other thing you needed to do was to avoid him as much as possible. After this encounter, you didn’t want to know what he would want you to do. Maybe a little… you thought. He is tall, and you could feel his abs through his leather jacket. If you didn’t know anything about him and met him in a club, you definitely would have let him take you home.

Your thoughts were interrupted by a knock on the door. You snapped your head to see who it was. Thor was standing there. “Are you okay?” he asked. You froze, thinking he had witnessed the whole thing. “I’m fine” you said, hoping he would believe the lie. “Good, Loki likes to scare and play with people. So, I thought I check up on you” he gave you a genuine smile. “Also… I wondered if maybe you would want to have dinner with us tonight?”. You looked at him with a questioning look on your face. “Sorry?” you asked him. Thor started to let his hand go through his hair. His posture changed a bit, he looked more nervous. “Well, bringing Loki here was necessary. But I’m worried about how he will fit in and he needs to. Plus, he will be here a long time. So, I was hoping you would help me with him and maybe get to know him a bit? If he knows someone, he usually lights up.” he gave you a pleading look. “You two actually are very similar in some ways.” he said quickly. “N- not that I mean.. I didn’t mean..” he stammered. “I didn’t mean it as an insult, I just think you two could be friends, that’s all” he sighed. I really don’t have time to spend a whole evening trying to befriend the guy that just made my life hell. I really need to work. You looked at Thor, who was putting on his best puppy eyes. You sighed “Fine, but I have to finish some things for work. So, I cannot make it too late.” Thor grinned widely at you. He walked towards you and engulfed you in a big hug. “Mortal over here, Thor” you said while he was squeezing the tiny amount of air you had in your lungs out. “Thank you Lady (Y/N)!” he boomed. “Just come to his room around six o’clock, I will take care of dinner.”

Thor left your office. Great, tonight is going to be so much fun you thought sarcastically. You turned towards your laptop and opened your document, finally getting to work on your security plan.

128 notes · View notes

juiceastronaut · 3 years

Text

Okay so. I watched Q-force. And I have no idea what I think about it.

Imma just be rambling so I'll break down the characters and my likes/dislikes about them before giving my plot breakdown at the end. Only the main/prominent ones because I don't have time.

Steve Maryweather-Easily the best character out of them, with Deb being a close second. He could've very easily fallen into the trope of being someone who was incompetent but expected the world anyway, but he doesn't. He graduated top of his class, and despite his quirks is a genuinely competent team leader, and wants the best for his team. He wants to prove that he and his team are competent enough to get recognition, and has a genuine faith in the people around him. It was refreshing to see him hold his team in a genuine high regard, where a lot of times it's like "We're shit but lets do this thing now" He's a genuinely well-rounded character, and (and forgive me if this isn't the best way to frame this) it feels like being gay is an important part of his character, without encompassing the whole thing. I thought Benji and his relationship was super cute and I was sad when they broke up. I was afraid he was going to be, like a second but worse Twink with the stereotyping but gladly fell away from that.

Deb-I thought her and her wife were super cute (though I hate how the wife is designed ngl adjafkldajfd). I liked Debs character, but I feel like she had a lot of racial stereotyping that wouldn't be inherently obvious unless you were looking for them, her being the strong one, and also the "mama" type at the same time. No one treated her with disrespect, and her lesbianism seemed to be more authentic but I feel like there wasn't a lot of thought put into what these tropes were and why they were bad. Her being black and making her the mama type, as well as the big strong type could be read as tasteless. Again, I really liked her character but these were some things I noticed while watching.

Twink- You know, I didn't really like him at first, I thought he was the epitome of all the bad stereotyping (though I'm just glad him and Mary didn't get put into the same category). His humor isn't my taste, and it just kinda seemed like someone for half of his lines went "what twitter stan language can we put in here?" And sometimes it was a bit too random for my tastes. However! I do like that his drag was considered important and was an integral part to a lot of missions they went on, and not just "Ah look at that dumb gay trying to find reasons to dress in drag." His talents and expertise were both respected and, save for Buck (which his whole point was supposed to be offensive anyway) no one undermined Twink for his femininity. His back story is also kinda random but did play a role in the missions as well. Still, personally think he's the worst character. Plus, he's French so minus four-twenties amount of points.

Stat-You know, in a show where everyone was stating what letter they were every few seconds I was surprised that I had to look up that Stat was trans. I...liked her character for the most part, except the part where she was fucking a robot. Kinda weird ngl, outta left field, and with her being trans I wonder if her having that sort of relationship is problematic for her. Love her design tho, love me a hacker girl. She's also listed as "ambiguously gay" tho showed to have mostly girl love interests but, okay.

Buck-He's the straight guy, emotionally repressed haha and he's bigoted. Did think it was funny later on when he was more "accepting" but managed to be even more infuriating about it. Tied with Twink as worse character but you know they tried to do stuff with him.

Vee-Really liked me a boss lady, but kinda weird how they bait-and-switched us with her actually being a lesbian, then go "no she's straight tho" in regards to Karen. I thought her and Mary's relationship was cute, wish I saw more of it. But she did feel like a random plot device in later seasons, what with her disappearing and reappearing when it was plot relevant. (Tho she HOTOHOTHOTHOT bikini episode WOOOWEEEE)

....

Okay, so now the plot....which. it had one?

It felt like it was flip flopping back n forth about whether it wanted to take itself seriously or not, and it seemed to decide on serious more towards the end, but then it would have this random plot element that would be so out of left field it would pull me out of my suspension of disbelief. See the whole "Back cracking to unlock memories" plot point. This back and forth on whether it would be a comedy or not I think weakened both categories it tried to play into.

If I had to compare the show to anything it would probably be Futurama, but the thing with Futurma is, its set in the future, so you're suspension of disbelief is allowed to stretch a bit more because all the wacky quirky stuff can be attributed to future shenanigans. Q-force, to my knowledge, is set in the modern day, which makes the wacky stuff that much wacker, because it's set in our modern times, which you apply the rules of everyday life to.

A lot of the problems that I had with Q-Force is, in the attempt to write specifically about the "gay experience" revealed that the writers have really only had a very specific experience of interacting with gay ppl, what I call the "Urban Gay" experience.

The fact they're in West Hollywood, and all the things that were listed as "universal gay experiences" but were only things that you'd be exposed to if you were in the city. I think a flavor of "white gay" can be implemented here too, which Q force has exactly one black woman, who manages to be the only lesbian.

That coupled with the fact that, there's a difference between having Twink naturally being a drag queen, the whole team being gay to some degree, and the fact they interact with the gay community often without Drawing Attention to all of those things and self-congratulating itself on concluding it. Funnily enough, Q-Force had examples of doing this right and doing this right. Right way: In the second or third episode where Mary found that guy with the flash drive to the uranium in it and seduced him in the gay bar. Relevant that it was gay without overtly drawing attention to it. Wrong-Way: Having Pride go on while Girl Boss was trying to take over the world.

And, for the show that promoted itself as representing the gay experience, there were...two gay men, one lesbian, one trans person, one straight guy and...no bisexual people. Also no nonbinary people. Like of course it's unrealistic to include every single identity but you're one bisexual person who appeared for one episode and was promptly blown up. And also showed to be...more off than the other characters, what with the stealing of silverware and all. Just, bisexual people are already forgotten enough as it is and not including them in the show, but you include two gay men just kinda reads as tasteless to me (as a bisexual person, obviously).

Which makes it so weird that Stat was left "ambiguously gay" when she could've easily been bisexual (which still would be problematic because of the robot-fucking but at least you got the B in there somewhere in the main group)

Overall, it tried to market itself as the "be all end all" of what it was like to be gay, but ended up excluding the exact people that get excluded in real-life lgbt spaces. This combined with the indecision with what kind of show it wanted to be managed to make it fall short. If you arent the very specific type of gay person who lives in a city environment and doesn't fit the stereotypes showed you're not going to feel "seen" by the show.

Weirdly though, I didn't hate watching it, and I would probably watch another season if they managed to make one. The parts that did work, I think worked really well, and even the bad parts just read as tasteless, and not actively terrible. If they focused less on making "hey I'm gay" jokes every three seconds and just let each character be what they are I think the show would be stronger for it. And I think they'd find less problems overall if they did that too. In the mean time I'll just be here side-eyeing the whole thing.

Edit: I forgot to mention, and this is a problem a lot of adult TV shows fall into, that because they got the clear to show nudity/sex they felt like they *had* to show nudity and to a lesser extent sex every episode. So just that whole "Haha adult=sex obviously."

Oh! And this generally goes for the whole "shove it in your face" part, but a lot of the characters who are bigoted were shown to be. Very blatantly so. And not to say there isn't blatantly bigoted ppl of course they are but I don't think that's where you see a lot of bigotry nowadays. This was sort of touched on during the show but more of a jokey manner, but I think it would've been more realistic if we had more "girl with a gay best friend" kinda bigotry as opposed to the "I'm literally hurling slurs at you" bigotry, especially since they're in Cali.

#like its a C+ I think #q-force #criticism #like there's a lot wrong with it but I thought it was kinda charming overall #like. you could have all those things that gays like in these characters but to every three seconds go #'i like this thing because I'm a lesbian'#just kinda got old after a while #juicy takes

10 notes · View notes

bobbyshaddoe80 · 3 years

Text

Liberated Audio Reviews

Blake's 7 - The Liberator Chronicles Vol. 6

RELEASED OCTOBER 2013

Recorded on: 2, 10 and 30 October and 13 December 2012

Recorded at: Moat Studios

Review By Robert L. Torres

Incentive by Peter Anghelides

'The Liberator crew are recovering from a Galactic War and searching for their lost members Blake and Jenna. But it’s a search that leads them into terrible danger…'

Because this story marks the return of Steven Pacey to the role of Del Tarrant, I think it is best that I get my views on the character out of my system before getting to the rest of the review.

Honestly.... Out of the main characters that have come and gone on the show during its four season run, there are two that I do not count as my favorites.

The first is Soolin, largely due to how bland and one note the character was compared to the character she was brought on to replace in Series D... Cally.

The other character is Del Tarrant, and I shall endeavor to explain why I dislike him despite Steven Pacey's fine performance.

From the first moment he appeared on the show, there was something about him that just rubbed me the wrong way. For years I knew it was the character himself that seemed like the problem... But I could never work out why.

This story finally brought to light why I disliked Tarrant's character. He was a young, cocky, hot shot with loyalties only to himself... Basically a less charming and less endearing version of Star Lord. He was impatient, brash, and only seemed to be throwing in his lot with the resistance for no other reason than for fame and glory.

In addition, Tarrant seemed to go out of his way to get under everyone's skin (or rather just Avon's), and always bristled under Avon's command.

I understand that with Gareth Thomas having left the series, they needed to create a new character to go up against Avon on the decision making, much in the same way Avon used to butt heads with Blake. Except the dynamic between Avon and Tarrant, from what I remember, was different and far more antagonistic than it was between Blake and Avon. Avon was an Alpha dog, but Tarrant was also an Alpha dog. This is probably why most of their disagreements, from what I remember, tended to come across like dick wagging contests.

It has been a while since I saw the series proper, but there are only two things of any significance regarding Tarrant that I remember. The first was the Series C episode 'Death Watch', which I think involved his twin brother Deeta. The other was the episode 'Sand' from Series D, which involved him and Servalan being trapped on a planet together... Having conjugal relations.

While the character of Del Tarrant isn't my favorite, Anghelides does a pretty good job of at least attempting to shed a bit of light on his character. This is accomplished by focusing on his desperate desire to stand out from the crowd and make a name for himself on par with the legendary Blake and Jenna.

The story begins not long after Tarrant and Dayna have officially joined the crew. During their latest attempt to locate Blake and Jenna, Tarrant and Avon are captured and interrogated while strapped to an electro-shock lie detector. This dual focused narrative split is in itself a pretty interesting dig at unreliable narratives, especially given that both Tarrant and Avon receive electro shocks whenever they aren't being completely truthful in their recollections.

By the way, kudos to Adrian Lukis for his exquisite portrayal of Interrogator Bracheeni. The scenes that featured him interacting with Tarrant and Avon were actually some of the best parts of the story. The revelation of who and what Bracheeni is added a great deal to the narrative, especially in providing an explanation as to why the Liberator crew had to abandon the search for Blake and Jenna.

All things considered, it is nice to get an actual in-universe explanation as opposed to what actually happened: the plot thread being dropped without explanation, forcing viewers to accept the fact that Blake and Jenna weren't coming back... Ever.

While there are some interesting ideas and set ups featured in the story, the narrated recollections are not really that engaging. In addition, my problem with this story is the same problem I had with Volume Three's 'Armageddon Storm'. Its a narrated story that should have been done as a full cast audio.

Final Score: 6 out of 10 Plasma Bolts

As it stands, this story does its job of filling an hour and retroactively provides answers to lingering questions, thus making it essential. However, this is marred by being an uneven story that is only half engaging.

Jenna's Story by Steve Lyons

'Jenna's story is finally told - from her escape from the Liberator during the Galactic War, to her determination to continue the fight against the Federation alone… with the odds stacked against her.'

When Big Finish Productions obtained the rights to produce new stories set within Series A through C of Blake's 7, this not only opened up story avenues to provide greater focus stories for many of its characters, but also an opportunity to fill in a couple of gaps in the narrative.

While 'Incentive' was an uneven story, it still managed to do what the show itself was unable or unwilling to do at the time: explain why the Liberator crew abandoned their search for Blake and Jenna.

Answering lingering questions seems to be this boxset's central theme as the next two stories are focused on what happened to the characters that literally jumped ship at the end of Series B, Jenna and Blake.

According to dialogue spoken by Cally in early Series C, it was always assumed that Jenna was with Blake when they abandoned ship during the Galactic War. It was also naturally assumed that Jenna had been with Blake the whole time during Series C and D.

Turns out that wasn't the case at all... Which actually works to the benefit of this story and the next.

Here, Jenna recounts how she spent her time surviving and fighting during the events of Series C and leading into Series D. It provides Sally Knyvette with great material and also serves as a reminder of what made me, personally, fall out of love with the series during Series D... Particularly with the way the series ended.

Let me be clear, as much I personally didn't like not having Blake and Jenna around on the show anymore, Steve Lyons managed to craft an exceptional Jenna-centric story that absolutely had to be told. This story, as well as the next one, managed to do a much better job implementing the central themes of what was meant to be on display during Series C and particularly during Series D: how the crusade that Blake started with hope and optimism slowly but surely devolved into cynicism, suspicion, self-interest and ultimately self-destruction.

This is highlighted well during Jenna's dealings with Correll, played by John Banks, and his disrespectfully dismissive attitude towards people with 'noble causes', his derogatory disbelief in 'heroes', as well as his overriding, self-serving self-interest.

Kudos to Banks for portraying someone that's basically an unlikeable, selfish jerk without becoming despicable.

The crux and climax of the story is based on a line of dialogue Blake tells Tarrant during the series finale regarding Jenna's ultimate fate. While the moment itself is thrilling and well executed, I had hoped that it was a lie as part of Blake's test or something. Still, what was crafted here is suitably tragic as it showcases the depths of Jenna's devotion, and even her love, for Blake.

The ultimate tragedy being that, in the end, she never did get to tell Blake how she felt about him... and how much he meant to her.

Final Score: 10 out of 10 Plasma Bolts

A superbly satisfying sendoff and sublime swansong for Sally's Stannis!

Blake's Story by Mark Wright and Cavan Scott

'Blake's story is finally told - from his escape from the Liberator during the Galactic War, to his new life as a troubled, scarred man on a distant rebel world…'

Before getting into the review, I have to state that while I understand the reasons why Gareth Thomas and Sally Knyvette left the show at the end of Series B, it is my opinion that the show lost quite a bit of its inherent identity once Blake and Jenna were gone.

While many contend that promoting the late Paul Darrow to lead actor was the creative booster shot the show needed, there is a reason the show was still called Blake's 7 and not Avon's 7.

No matter who is given the spotlight and focus, Blake's presence is still very embedded within the show's DNA. Despite his absence, Blake's influence is still keenly felt by those that inhabit this fictional universe... Both directly and indirectly.

While the storytelling avenues may have opened up for the rest of the cast, the audience would still inevitably wonder, 'Where the hell is Blake? When is he coming back?' Largely because the audience was still interested in seeing Blake's story continue.

Both Gareth Thomas and Chris Boucher no doubt understood this to be absolutely true. As long as the Roj Blake character remained alive, but missing from a show that bared his character's name, then Gareth Thomas would not have been able to truly move forward in his career.

Which is why its no surprise that the most memorable moment in the entire series came about at Thomas' insistence.

But this isn't about how Blake's story ends... Its about the circumstances Blake experienced during Series C and D that led to his ultimate fate on Gauda Prime. And I am pleased to say that Wright and Scott do an excellent job filling in the blanks of Blake's journey.

From landing on the planet Epheron in his escape pod, to attempting to reunite with the Liberator (which includes Blake visiting the planet Shorlan post-Armageddon Storm), to being captured, tortured and accused of treachery by the Resistance (thus explaining the scar over his eye he displayed in the series finale), its all presented here brilliantly. I also appreciate how engaging these moments are, and aren't treated as plot points to check off.

The late Gareth Thomas really did a great job with this material, displaying the same charisma and intensity he had shown throughout his tenure on the show, which is doubly unfortunate that he had opted out after Series B.

The framing device utilized for Blake recounting events is brilliant, and the twist reveal is actually rather clever... If a little unsurprising. However, it serves the narrative well as it goes to the heart of the tragic and ironic inevitability that lies ahead for Blake, particularly in his connection to Avon.

Despite their disagreements and opposing ideals... And no matter how often Avon secretly wished to be rid of Blake... They still needed each other.

It often reminds me of why the Doctor chooses to travel with companions, the companions keep the Doctor grounded and keep the Doctor from going too far for the sake of selfish self interest and so on.

While neither one would ever admit it, Blake and Avon had the ability to keep each other in check. And even though Blake said at the end of 'Star One' and even near the end of this story that he always trusted Avon... Its only with the benefit of hindsight do we question whether or not that trust was warranted.

Final Score: 10 out of 10 Plasma Bolts

A truly satisfying sendoff for the original star of the show.

Final score for Volume 6 of the Liberator Chronicles, in its entirety, is 8 out of 10 Plasma Bolts.

This is an essential set of stories for longtime fans. Even though there are six more boxsets of stories left in the range, if the Liberator Chronicles audio range ended here, it would have ended on a major high note.

As an aside, while the next six boxsets have produced some outstanding stories, I personally feel that both 'Jenna's Story' and 'Blake's Story' should have been the stories utilized as the finale for the Liberator Chronicles range overall.

-----------------------------------------------------

Questions or comments:

Email - [email protected]

Bobby's Facebook Page

#big finish productions #blake's 7 #audiobook #reviews #audio dramas

2 notes · View notes

loopy777 · 4 years

Note

whats your thoughts on Venom, the green goblin and doctor octopus, the three characters who are generally held up as spidermans archenemies? which one do you think has the best potential as spidermans definite enemy if they were written perfectly, and which series do you think had the best portrayal of each of them respectively?

If I had to crown THE Spider-Man Archnemesis, I would have to give it to Green Goblin. Doc Ock is the oldest, and the first to both defeat Spider-Man and make him consider quitting, but ultimately Norman has taken more from Spidey, gotten more personal in their conflict, and created more of a legacy for the mythos. Sorry, Otto.

That said, I don’t really like designating a single archnemesis for Spidey because Norman hasn’t completely dominated the field. Ock runs the Sinister Six, Spidey’s big Villain Team and one of the best Villain Teams in all of superhero comics. (And let’s face it, the Legion of Doom is bigger only because DC characters got more media exposure for a long time and Superman’s villains are so good that Lex Luthor, Brainiac, and Bizarro lift up the likes of Solomon Grundy and Cheetah when they’re all on a team together.) Venom has the whole Evil Knockoff thing going and a unique and terrifying ‘stalker’ gimmick that puts him in a special class, not to mention how he directly overpowers or counters all Spidey’s abilities.

And, honestly, the whole ‘Goblin’ gimmick is kind of arbitrary and has nothing to do with spiders. Clowns and bats don’t have a direct relation, but at least they’re opposites in terms of color and purpose, so Batman and Joker kind of seem like twisted rivals. Goblins and spiders are only linked in that they’re both kind of Halloweeny, but Spider-Man has little to do with Halloween or spooky stuff, anyway. But I better cut this line of thought off before I start explaining how Spider-Man shouldn’t be Spider-Man at all and him being Frog-Man would make just as much sense and then we wouldn’t have to deal with pictures of icky spiders in all Spider-Man media.

But yeah, Norman Osborne is still indisputably a cut above the others.

Ock is really just a typical mad scientist with a robot-arm gimmick that allows him to directly fight with Spider-man. He’s well-written and constructed, granted, and I love how his arrogance contrasts with Peter’s humility, how they’re such opposites in terms of empathy, and how different their paths become after science-based accidents that granted them unusual powers. Bendis’s “Ultimate Spider-Man” comics nicely honed in on this theme, and I also appreciate how both Stan Lee’s prose story in the unrelated “Ultimate Spider-Man” short story collection (...it’s a title Marvel loves to reuse for some reason) and John Byrne’s attempted origin revision linked the irradiated spider to the explosion that created Ock. All great villains should be dark reflections of their heroes, but while Ock has gotten some great stories that make him a top-tier villain, he still offers little storytelling potential beyond his mad scientist archetype. Now, I know what comics-readers are thinking at this point: Yes, I did read the original “Superior Spider-Man” run and I think there’s some real potential there, but honestly I feel like it was under-served by Dan Slott’s pacing and foibles. And I haven’t seen an adaptation of it yet that I think really fulfills the possibilities. But the idea is great, so maybe Otto will get his chance to level up his rivalry with Spider-Man.

Venom’s problem is that he’s a little too focused on his revenge on Spider-Man. The stories where he stalks Spidey, wandering into Peter’s life to fold laundry with Aunt May, popping up to have a surprise tussle with Spidey just to throw him off-balance, etc- Those are great and make Venom seem super-scary, especially since Spidey can’t beat Venom in a fight without some kind of edge or gimmick. But all Venom wants is revenge on Spidey, so after he’s failed a few times to get it, what do you do with the character? He’s not scary if he keeps failing. The original idea was to have the symbiote pass on from Eddie Brock and take on other hosts, and that might have opened the door for some new kinds of stories. I know this was eventually implemented 20 years later, with the original Scorpion getting to be Venom for a while, and symbiotes becoming a whole Thing with a bunch in various colors, but I didn’t read any of those stories and they don’t seem to have left much impression on the general Spider-Man fandom. Ultimately, it was chosen to ‘redeem’ Eddie Brock and make Venom into an “anti-hero” (for a definition of the term that means “protagonist who kills people but doesn’t have to worry about that whole ‘consistently laid low by their fatal flaw’ thing”) which did sell a bunch of comics in the 90′s and set up some tension-filled team-ups with Spidey. Nice idea, if implemented in a really shaggy way, but -- again -- what do you do after that? Venom/Eddie isn’t really a compelling lead who you can keep telling stories about. (Yes, I saw the Venom movie. It has like two minutes of amusing material and two hours of boring dreck, and none of it is memorable.) And making him evil again runs into the same problem as having left him evil in the first place. Venom was a good idea whose time came and went, and perhaps someone will find a way to make him fresh again. But until then, I think he gets by more on his visuals than anything.

The Green Goblin, in contrast, has a lot going for him in terms of storytelling potential. He’s a mad scientist, a wanna-be crime boss, a dark shadow of his civilian identity looking for revenge and/or illicit thrills, and personally has that ongoing personal hatred/rivalry for Spider-Man. That offers a whole bunch of storytelling paths, all of which have been taken and proven fruitful over the years. And that’s without getting into how Norman Osborne is the father of Peter’s best friend Harry, a flawed father figure to Peter in his own right, a ruthless millionaire industrialist before Lex Luthor gave it a try, and another dark reflection of the paths Peter could have taken in both aspects of his life. Even when Norman is dead, his legacy continued to be felt for 20-odd years with how Harry fell from grace. You can even link Norman to his spin-off the Hobgoblin; just Norman’s equipment getting passed on created another enduring villain. And, again, that’s without even looking at Norman’s murder of the one-time romantic lead Gwen Stacy being the event that ended the Silver Age of comics. Norman Osborne is just plain a truly great, versatile villainous character who has managed, despite being almost 60 years old, to still maintain an “Oh, no!” impact among Spidey fans when he shows up. Sure, there have been bad stories about him, and some over-exposure at times, but that hasn’t diminished his impact or ongoing potential.

As for portrayals, I’m overall a fan of the 90′s animated series and their takes. That show really petered out after a few seasons, but it introduced Ock with a bang and got a lot of mileage out of him. Venom got to do the whole scary stalker thing, and then the show put him on a shelf until his ‘redeeming’ death to avoid over-exposure, so that worked out fairly well. And while it’s odd how Kingpin and Hobgoblin took over most of the Green Goblin’s role in Spider-Man’s stories, what we did get of Norman was good, and the performance that went into the Green Goblin really sold the weird psychology of the character. Those three villains definitely got a chance to shine in this series, even if Green Goblin was under-used.

I also think the Sam Raimi movies overall did a good job. Green Goblin was perfect- aside from the costume. Willem Dafoe utterly nailed every aspect of the character, right down to the body language, and the movie did a good job condensing his rivalry with Spider-Man into a single movie. As for Doctor Octopus, I’m of two minds about how he got a sympathetic backstory and characterization. On the one hand, it made him a more compelling character and Alfred Molina danced nicely between the human side and the villainous side. On the other hand, though, Ock has classically never really been sympathetic; he’s an utter monster in behavior, and the insertions of bullying in his backstory have never changed that. Venom is the only one I think didn’t really get a chance in these movies; I like this version of Eddie Brock (really!), but he barely got an opportunity to be Venom and you can tell no aspect of the character really inspired the storytellers.

Spectacular Spider-Man, naturally, did a good job. I think this version of Green Goblin is the best of them all; I even got my DVD set signed by Steve Blum! Ock was also done well, getting to be the Master Planner as well as leader of the Sinister Six, although I don’t think I quite buy the timidity they gave the character before the accident. Similarly, I didn’t buy Eddie’s fall from grace as Peter’s best friend; one episode he’s upset because Peter’s blowing him off for hanging out, and the next episode he’s nearly killing Mary Jane just to mess with Peter. You might as well just start with Eddie being a monster, like the Raimi movie did.

I also think Bendis’s Ultimate comics did well by all three characters. I’m not really a fan of Goblin-Hulk, but Norman’s impact was fully in effect (even if we had yet another toothless homage to Gwen Stacey’s death with Mary Jane getting thrown off a bridge and surviving), and they fit him well into the Super-Soldier Arms Race aspect of the setting. Ock got some really great use, including an arc of character development and ‘redemption’ that still managed to allow him to be an arrogant monster to the end. Venom was under-used, but this might be the best ever interpretation of Eddie Brock and obviously inspired the Raimi version, and I love the origin of the symbiote here and how it tied to Peter’s father. My only complaint is that after that first great story, Bendis didn’t seem to quite know what to do with Venom; the video game and its comic adaptation seemed to be setting him up for more, but that didn’t come to anything.

So, those are my thoughts. As a Spider-Man fan, I think I’m spoiled for choice in picking an achnemesis. Despite the little flaws that keep Ock and Venom from topping the Green Goblin, they’re still heavy-hitters as comic book villains and could run the game in the rogues gallery of most other superheroes. But Spidey has one of the best sets of villains in the business, so that’s not surprising.

#thekingofwinterblog

3 notes · View notes

sasukecooper · 6 years

Text

JANE!!! MICHAEL!!! RAFAEL!!! WHAT THE EVER LIVING FUCK!!!

so here’s the lowdown on the hoedown, my amigos. i got TWO THEORIES about Michael and ONE THEORY about the show itself. *ryan bergara voice* without further ado, let’s get into it.

Theories about Michael’s return

1. Michael is real, he just has amnesia

so the past few episodes with River & Rogelio’s banter gave subtle hints about this. Rogelio fighting over keeping the amnesia trope in The Passions of Steve with River stating that it makes no sense. we all know this show has a way with hints before a major twist, so this could be their way of telling us what’s coming. this does explain Michael’s expression when he saw Jane but doesn’t really fit with why Rose chooses to bring it up at this point in the story. what would explain that is...

2. Michael is fake, will pretend to have amnesia & definitely works for Rose

we all saw it. we all cried about it. THIS cannot be as it seems to be!! it must be Rose’s ally in disguise!!! after all, she did run a plastic surgery racket for criminals. and since luisa isn’t doing anything to initiate Rose’s plan, that required a shit ton of money to be implemented, maybe this “Michael” is going to play a part in that. either way, this makes the most sense for a number of reasons. to name a few,

this explains why dennis (his partner before he passed) mentioned that he was trying to clear Michael’s name because the cops were looking into whether Michael was involved with Sin Rostro. mayhaps they got the slightest clue of this but had to let it go because of the lack of evidence?

an interview with Jennie Urman reveals that it’s not a twin AND this was done to bring the show to a full circle as it goes into its FINAL CHAPTERS!!!

Rose gave Rafael this information, presumably, without receiving Luisa’s location. Rose would never do anything without getting something in return!!! so either Raf gave up her location (dear god i hope he asked Luisa before doing that) or this Michael is in cahoots with Rose.

Narrator has ALWAYS said that Michael would love Jane until his dying breath. which WE SAW. WE SAW HIS DYING BREATH *breaks down*

Theories about the show

1. Jane’s novel

this episode we saw Jane’s writing take a turn with her deciding to put all 3 of her novel ideas into 1!! so to recap, that would be-

snow falling (the novel about Michael)

untitled novel about Alba & her family

current WIP about Xiomara

so, wouldn’t that mean she’s basically writing about her life?? focusing on all the people around her inadvertently brings her into the story. with that hint from a few points before about the final chapters and the fact that we’re only 19 episodes away from chapter 100, is it possible that this show is the end result of Jane’s novel? i would love to see this series end showing that Jane publishes this book which gets adapted into a TV show on the CW (lol spon) and Rogelio makes sure that happens — possibly even being our narrator?

dibs on I CALLED IT if that happens!!

((if Michael is real & he just has amnesia, this show still has a long way to go before the finish line. but if he’s just a criminal in disguise, this fits really well into everything i just mentioned!!))

#jane the virgin #season 4 #season finale #telenovela #jane villanueva #michael cordero #rafael solano #petra solano #jafael #JTV #jane ramos #petramos

213 notes · View notes

moontheoretist · 3 years

Text

Yeah, well Falcon and Winter Soldier made me think. A lot.

Watching The Falcon and The Winter Soldier first episode made me thinking. Like literally a lot about how quick America is to forget the atrocities committed by their heroes as long as their heroes have "America" in their hero name. Ok, so, fighting Thanos, may or may not redeem him in the eyes of the people. "He fought for us after all" and all this shit, and he also had a semi-normal life during the Blip, because nobody cared anymore, but it doesn't change anything. He fucked up the life for every enhanced there was with his Civil War stunt and then when everything was over, he threw everything away, all responsibility for the shit he had done and just went and disappeared into the past, where he very much OOCed himself by sitting on his ass for 70 years doing nothing, while his defining feature is basically that he cannot sit on his ass for 5 seconds. And you know what? I cannot feel differently about it than seeing MCU making Steve's life easier and at the same time undermining Tony's sacrifice. Steve gets his dream life by abandoning the future, and then is praised and his museum is opened and all that jazz, as if to spit in Tony's legacy's face, because MCU couldn't sacrifice Iron Man and let him be a lone hero for once, no, they had to kick off Steve, so everybody would feel sad that Steve is no longer there too. And it is seemingly a tragedy that he isn't there anymore. No, America, it is not tragedy. The tragedy is that he run away from facing the consequences of his actions ONCE AGAIN, and on top of that this time abandoned Bucky to have his peace of mind. It just spells to me that Steve is a highly selfish person who doesn't care about anybody else than himself. You were fooled that he cared about Bucky, but then the moment he had the occasion to run, he kicked Bucky to the curb and said "sayonara, buddy, you gotta live without me now" even though he made the mess of everything around him, because of Bucky in the first place. Do you think Bucky wouldn't feel awful knowing that Steve fucked everything out for him and then chickened out and left him, so he wouldn't have to live with it, but Bucky has to instead?

Honestly there is nothing more grating on my nerves than honoring Captain America, goddammit Steve Rogers after all the bullshit he had done. I hate this goddamn museum. I hate that Rhodey was there to honor him as if he didn't lose Tony just a few months ago and had more important shit to do than honor a guy who fucked up his friends mental health and made his life and work even worse after the Civil War. I hate it so much I wanna scream, and I think Rhodey feels so too, judging by his reaction to the SHIELD being put on display when Sam rejects it (he just makes this face as if he felt conflicted about the legacy of the SHIELD and as much as he felt bad that Sam didn’t accept the mantle, because to Rhodey Sam would probably be better Captain than Steve was, he probably also saw the shield as the tool which was used to hurt and shame his dead best friend), but I appreciate that he is there to supports Sam. I just don't appreciate this American bullshit of licking the butt of Captain America even though it's completely in character for America as a goddamn country, because they cannot be critical of themselves and their heroes for a goddamn five seconds. And don't even make me start on how infuriating seeing Steve Rogers as a hero of WW2 is to a polish person. America and Captain America are hailed as the heroes of the day, while people who fought all this time and didn't have even a choice to sit on their butts doing nothing as long as America did, don't get shit. People of Poland are basically raised with knowledge of WW2, what happened at the time to us, how we were treated (bur ofc we miraculously like to forget how we treated Jews at the time, because polish people are that hypocritical to cry foul when anybody accuses them of antisemitism even though there are historical records to prove it) and how we fought, how our underground army fought with the Nazis and Soviets, but the only thing people outside of us know about this is that “you were liberated by Russia/America, so be grateful”. Thanks America for once again undermining victims of holocaust. Steve may be created by Jewish people, but Captain America is as much an ideal aryan-look-alike superhuman fighting against Nazis, the mockery of the Nazi ideals as he is made to completely spit in the face of the people who suffered, had Nazi Germany conquer them and murder them, because he erases the stories and the struggle of those people and focuses the attention of the viewer on “mighty America saving the day” instead of those people, as they are seen as “victims in need of help”. MCU Steve doesn't even know about the fucking Death Camps and what happened there, because he fell into ice before 1945 when camps were discovered by America.

Also, lol. Bucky is a total brat on his sessions. And it’s funny to see him like this, while fandom was mostly imagining him as the one who would want the therapy, who would behave, most of the time, and Steve was seen as the one who was the bratty one in therapy instead. Yes I am talking about this part of the fandom which knows Steve isn’t an angel and doesn’t excuse his CW bullshit.

Also, why I have the feeling that Bucky picked Yori to be his friend, because 1. His old age reminds him of the past Steve, the sickly one. 2. His stubbornness reminding him of Steve being a goddamn hell of a person, always picking fights and stuff. Like. I saw the interaction, and it was like the first thing I saw, Bucky from Brooklyn stopping his friend from hitting people, which reminded me a lot about how he saved Steve in this alleyway and told him to stop picking fights with people bigger than him.

Bucky Barnes. A guy who tells a woman he wears gloves for “poor circulation” XD Ok, this is goddamn funny, but also sad, because he knows she may get scared of the metal arm or even of the very mention of the prosthetic, because ableism is rampant, and who knows it better than Bucky Barnes, Steve’s buddy?

You know this whole scene about the loan? My family was there. We are so poor that even with steady income no bank wants to give the loans, so I get it. But if I see anybody blaming Sam’s financial situation on Tony or Pepper I will scream and start throwing daggers a’la Loki. The person, or people, who are responsible for this, are those who DIDN’T put ANYTHING in place for the possibility of Blipped people coming back. And Tony WASN’T one of those people, because he already got accustomed to living in the world without all those people. He lost hope, and he wasn’t planning to bring them all back until Steve and the rest shown up and guilt-tripped him into doing something. If he had hope, he would prepare charities and funds for those who were blipped, but he didn’t have the hope Blip will be reversed, so the responsibility lies on the officials who after the Blip was reversed didn’t put into place regulations and funds for all those people who may have various issues due to being Blipped and then coming back. It wouldn’t be really that hard to come out with an idea what to do with the loan regulations for those who were Blipped, like implementing some special exceptions to help those people or something. And ofc instead of helping people who were Blipped with their family issues, America cares more about making a stunt and appoint new Captain America “to protect them”. Who will protect America from America though?

Also, Sam is stubborn. Yes America should do better by the Blipped people and their problems, but we all know how America is, how heartless and uncaring it is to human suffering. Sam here is just stubborn, he wishes to keep something which reminds him of family (which is important ofc) over saving the family he has now, because nostalgia over “good old days” is more important to him than what happens now. Not to mention that he has a faulty belief that him being Falcon changes something about the world around him, and he can get away with getting things which he knows he wouldn’t get if he wasn’t Falcon. He is very similar to Steve in that regard. Stubborn, stuck in his own idea of how world should work and chasing after the past instead of looking into the future. Not to mention that according to his sister, he kinda run away from family issues, Steve’s style, while his sister did everything she could to keep them afloat. Also fans are right. If he asked for help, Rhodey or Pepper would help. You cannot help someone if you don’t know they have issues. People are NOT mind readers. He has to ask for help first to get it.

#this is very much a rant

0 notes

jeroldlockettus · 5 years

Text

A Good Idea Is Not Good Enough (Ep. 369)

Pablo Picasso drew over 400 preparatory sketches — the most in history for a single painting — before starting to paint Les Demoiselles d’Avignon. (Photo: Steven Zucker/flickr)

Whether you’re building a business or a cathedral, execution is everything. We ask artists, scientists, and inventors how they turned ideas into reality. And we find out why it’s so hard for a group to get things done — and what you can do about it. (Ep. 4 of the “How to Be Creative” series.)

Listen and subscribe to our podcast at Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or elsewhere. Below is a transcript of the episode, edited for readability. For more information on the people and ideas in the episode, see the links at the bottom of this post.

* * *

Jessica O. MATTHEWS: So, I’m at Harvard, undergrad, I think it’s the end of my sophomore year, and I’m taking this course called “Idea Translation: Effecting Change Through Art and Science.”

That’s Jessica O. Matthews. And this class was back in 2008.

MATTHEWS: And I had heard from people that they gave you some money to do some cool stuff and that unlike most universities, they wouldn’t own the cool thing that you did. And I was like, “Okay, I like doing cool stuff and I like inventing, let’s see what happens.

Stephen J. DUBNER: But we should say, you were not an engineer or an engineer wannabe.

MATTHEWS: Well, I was studying psychology and economics. I grew up wanting to be an inventor. My father is a businessman. My sister, who had been at Harvard for two years before me, she actually was studying film, but she told my dad, my Nigerian dad, that she was studying economics.

DUBNER: I don’t blame her.

MATTHEWS: So two years pass and she graduates and we hear “visual and environmental studies” and my dad almost has a heart attack in the graduation stadium. And I’m sitting there just like, “All right dad, I’ll add economics.” So, I’m taking this course and I remembered thinking back to when I was 17, when I was in Nigeria and I was at my aunt’s wedding. And, as expected, we lost power. As expected, we brought in a diesel generator. And the fumes were so bad. And my cousins, who were in their 20’s at the time, they were just like, “Don’t worry, you’ll get used to it.”

And that’s what shook me. I was like, “Don’t worry, I’ll get used to it?” And I was like, “Okay, that’s a problem for the people in my family, that’s a problem for people in the world.” You have 1.3 billion people around the world who still, to this day, they don’t have reliable access to electricity. When the sun goes down, that’s often the end of their day. And that’s a travesty.

So Matthews, faced with a classroom assignment to invent something that would “effect change through art and science” — she thought about this problem, and she thought about a creative way to address it.

MATTHEWS: And I observed my cousins showing passion and showing excitement when they were playing soccer, right? So this is where the psychology comes in. And the same cousins that were saying, “Don’t worry, you get used to it,” had all these highfalutin, delusional ideas about what they could do on the soccer pitch that they just couldn’t do. They were not as good as Pele in any single way, but they would tell you they were. And this is how you need to be attacking life. I want to invent something, not something that would solve the energy problem but that would address it in a manner that would inspire people to be part of the movement toward solving it.

The invention she came up with was ingenious: a soccer ball that captures the kinetic energy that builds up as it’s being kicked and turns it into enough electrical energy to power a reading light. She called her electric soccer ball the Soccket. It won some fans in very high places:

Barack OBAMA: Some of you saw the Soccket, the soccer ball that we were kicking around that generates electricity as it’s kicked. I don’t want to get too technical, but I thought it was pretty cool.

After the Soccket came a jump rope that used the same technology. Matthews finished her undergrad degree and got an M.B.A., also at Harvard. And she started a company, based in Harlem, called Uncharted Power. The soccer ball and the jump rope didn’t turn out to be durable enough. But Matthews has raised $7 million in venture capital and is pushing her company to work on a larger scale: the electrical grid itself.

MATTHEWS: Our platform is called M.O.R.E. That stands for “motion-based off-grid renewable energy.” And it’s a platform that basically leverages our innovations in energy generation, energy transmission, and energy storage to offer what we like to call convenient energy.

One advantage of “convenient energy,” theoretically at least, is that it is decentralized, and therefore would not require the massive capital investments that power plants traditionally need. How well will Jessica Matthews’s idea actually work? It’s hard to say — and Matthews wouldn’t get into the details of Uncharted Power’s technology and implementation. So why am I telling you this story? Because it’s a story about the power of a good idea — and I think you’d agree that turning kinetic energy that’s fun to generate into electricity is a good idea. But really why I’m telling you this story is to point out that a good idea is worth nothing without great execution. That’s where Jessica Matthews stands right now, and she knows it.

MATTHEWS: I think ideas are great. But in a weird way it’s almost like they’re meaningless if they don’t actually make a difference in our lives. So I had to figure out execution because how can I go to my cousins and be like, “Oh, I have this cool idea for an energy-generating soccer ball” and then two weeks later they’re like, “Hey how’s it going?” I’m like, “Oh, I just have more ideas.” They’d be like, “What? Shut up. Stop coming here and telling us dumb stuff, Jessica.” So I had to come back and be like, “Here’s the prototype. What do you think?” Everyone is going to be motivated by different things but I’m the kind of inventor that’s looking to make whatever amount of time we have on this world better. And so execution has always been part of it.

* * *

Walter Isaacson has written biographies of some of the most creative people in history: Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein — and Steve Jobs—

Walter ISAACSON: Who, in his first stint at Apple, was such a perfectionist that he holds up shipping the original Macintosh because he doesn’t think the circuit board inside is pretty enough. Even though nobody will ever see it. And after a while, he gets fired from Apple because he’s such a perfectionist. And he would say, “Well, real artists sign their work,” meaning they have to wait until they are perfect before they ship. When he comes back to Apple at the end of the 1990’s, they give him a new motto, which is, “Real artists ship.”

But how do you ship your work? How do artists and scientists and inventors and other creative people turn the sparks flying around in their heads into something they can share with the world?

Margaret GELLER: Well, one of the difficult things of course is moving projects forward. There’s a big difference between the idea and execution.

That’s the pioneering astrophysicist Margaret Geller.

GELLER: And sometimes, you know, you start to do something, and nature just doesn’t conform. And you wonder, why me? And after the fact it’s fun, but it’s not so much fun while you’re doing it. It’s often very slow, it takes a long time, a lot of it is drudgery. It’s not as though you have an idea and tomorrow you write a paper and you submit it to the journal, and it’s done. And I think it’s the same with art and with writing.

Now, there are exceptions to prove every rule. The writer Michael Lewis, for instance. Among his books are The Big Short, Moneyball, and The Undoing Project. Even when he writes about complicated topics, Lewis’s writing is extraordinarily pleasurable and easy to read. So I once asked Lewis — it can’t be so pleasurable and easy to write, can it?

Michael LEWIS: Yes. It is pleasurable and easy. I hate to ruin your punchline, but actually what is hard for me is figuring out in the beginning what I want to say. I spend a lot of time gathering material and organizing the material before I sit down to write. I’d say three-quarters of the time is that. When the actual writing starts, it’s, for me, fun. It’s just fun. I mean, it’s fun and hard, but if it’s hard, it’s hard in a fun way. And people like my wife, who has walked in on me while I’m writing — I write with headphones on that just plays on a loop the same playlist that I’ve built for whatever book I’m writing. And I cease to hear anything in the world outside of what I’m doing. And apparently I’m sitting there laughing the whole time. And I think basically what I’m doing is laughing at my own jokes, but I wasn’t even aware of that. But people like my kids and my wife say that, “You’re sitting at your desk laughing all the time.”

Okay, so let’s set Michael Lewis aside. He’s his own category: the untortured artist. Let’s look at a project that was so difficult to execute that its creator did not finish it in his lifetime. And which is still being worked on today, nearly a century after his death. If you’ve ever been to Barcelona, you already know what I’m talking about: the Sagrada Familia church, designed by Antoni Gaudi, among the world’s best-known architects today. Who, during his lifetime, was a troublemaker.

Gijs Van HENSBERGEN: He was someone who was very loath to follow the kind of textbook, standard way.

Gijs van Hensbergen is a Dutch art historian who’s written a biography of Gaudi. He’s also, interestingly, a certified suckling-pig specialist.

VAN HENSBERGEN: Yes. I trained to write a cookery book, in fact. And using food as a way of understanding a different culture. So I went to train in Segovia, in the center of Spain, just north of Madrid, as a suckling pig chef.

All right, let’s get back to Gaudi, the man behind the unfinished masterpiece in Barcelona.

VAN HENSBERGEN: He was someone who was prepared not to just go down the orthodox route of what his teachers were saying. And in fact, once somebody asked him who influenced you most, and he said, “Well, I probably learned more from watching my father making boilers than I ever learned at architecture school.”

He was born in 1852 and grew up in a rural area outside of Barcelona.

VAN HENSBERGEN: As a child, he suffered badly from kind of a youthful version of arthritis. And so as a kid, he couldn’t always go to school, and his father — who was a boilermaker for making the stills for brandy distilling — would take him out to the workshop, out in the country.

He was enthralled by the exotic look of buildings around the world.

VAN HENSBERGEN: It was also for his generation, the first generation that could actually just look at photographs and see photographs of buildings all over the world. And he spent all his free time in the library just going through magazines and looking at photographs of buildings.

He was also enthralled by nature.

VAN HENSBERGEN: The little details of shells, the way the wind blew, the way that trees grow, the kind of magical Fibonacci sequences that appear in sunflower heads. And all these things, he’s instinctively, but very empirically, noticing, and would reappear in his buildings and his building techniques later on.

Gaudi studied architecture formally in Barcelona but was unimpressed by the orthodoxy of his teachers. It bored him. When he started getting commissions — for houses and apartment buildings and parks — he was relentlessly experimental. His traditional elements were exotic, his modern elements phantasmagorical. Gaudi was also an oddball: a hermit, a celibate, and something of a despot. He’d show up at a building site in the morning and order the contractors to demolish what they’d built the day before, so that he could redesign it. Meanwhile, in the rural Catalonia where he’d grown up there was a massive economic disruption caused by phylloxera, a disease that ruined the grapevines that were the source of many farmers’ income.

VAN HENSBERGEN: Once the vines started being attacked, and people lost their vines and they lost their livelihoods, came flooding into the cities. And it meant that there was massive, massive social pressure from a predominantly illiterate working class, which would fill the factories. And massive overcrowding, and the working classes felt that they were being abused. But particularly with the Church, they felt that sometimes the Church was misusing its so-called charity, looking after them but actually in a sense controlling them.

The Catholic Church was looking to rehabilitate its relationship with these newly urban parishioners. So it decided to build a huge church in a working-class part of Barcelona. It would be dedicated to the Holy Family — the Sagrada Familia — because, after all, Joseph was a carpenter.

VAN HENSBERGEN: The Holy Family could act as a model, that the working man — their handicraft or whatever — should be something that is respected.

Gaudi himself was a very conservative Catholic; his feelings for the Church and for Jesus ran deep and pure.

VAN HENSBERGEN: Right at the heart of his belief system was this idea that Christ’s suffering is something that we understand only through our own suffering, and that his ultimate generosity of course was to die for us.

When Gaudi received the commission to build the Sagrada Familia, after the original architect resigned from the project, he was only in his early thirties.

VAN HENSBERGEN: And I think Gaudí felt his duty as an architect, and certainly with the Sagrada Família, was that a building should reflect the glory of God, and that God was working through him.

Gaudi’s concept for the church was massive, extraordinarily detailed, a mashup of every architectural style under the sun but like nothing anyone had ever seen. It included life-like sculptures of Bible stories — emphasis on the life-like.

VAN HENSBERGEN: So when, on the Sagrada Família, you have the flight to Egypt, he wanted a donkey, it had to be life-size, he sends one of his workmen over to look around for a donkey that might look as if it had walked 40 days through the desert, and he finds the rag-and-bone man’s donkey, and he gets it, puts it in a harness, chloroforms the donkey, and then puts it into plaster and makes molds. He does it with chicken, with geese. One of the most dramatic moments is actually the Slaughter of the Innocents, where the little babies being cast down by this giant Roman centurion, total kind of brutal scene, this baby has his head smashed on the ground. And Gaudi actually took stillborn children, cast them, and used those models for the sculptures that would then be on the face of his building.

The scale, both exterior and interior, was way larger-than-life, designed to inspire awe. The interior pillars resemble a forest of grand trees.

VAN HENSBERGEN: Trees are actually some of the most efficient pieces of architecture ever grown, not built, and the way that they can put up with wind, and the way that they know where they should stick out a new branch. And he creates this lapidary forest, this extraordinary forest of columns, as you walk in. And this soaring space which is so dramatic, and with these stained-glass windows and this amazing light. I mean, even if you weren’t religious, there is a very, very powerful kind of explosion of space.

Gaudí would work on the project for the rest of his life, eventually moving into the basement workshop.

VAN HENSBERGEN Later on in life, he became very ascetic. He made his own clothes. He looked more and more like a tramp. He lived the whole purpose of the Sagrada Familia, which was to create this new Christian temple on a scale which today is kind of only just, we’re beginning to see, what an extraordinary kind of fantasy and dream that Gaudi had created for this building.

DUBNER: I’m also curious, because of what Gaudí said about creativity, as you write, “Creation works ceaselessly through man, but man does not create, he discovers. Those who seek out the laws of nature as support for their new work collaborate with the Creator. Those who copy are not collaborators. For this reason, originality consists in returning to the origin.” So to me, that is a bit of a paradox. And I wonder if you can explain that for me, as it relates to Gaudí, and especially as it relates to the Sagrada Família.

VAN HENSBERGEN: Well, I often think back on Isaac Newton, saying, “Look, I was just like a little boy walking along the beach, picking up a pebble, and I noticed one was shinier than the other.” And there is a sense of humility about Gaudí’s genius as well. And this idea of going back to the origin. Because one of his signature discoveries — and something which became right at the core of his building technique — was the discovery of the power of the catenary arch. And the catenary arch is: take a chain, hold it between your fingers, and let it drop. It’s gravity pulling it down, which of course for Gaudí becomes another kind of religious metaphor, because who is it that invents gravity? Well, God of course.

But what you get is this chain formation. If you flip it over, it forms this catenary arch, which is the most economical shape in architecture. And he uses that as a kind of leitmotif, for the last 20, 30 years of his creative life, and works on the model which is four-and-a-half meters high and all these little chains with little bags, shotgun pellets, representing the different stresses, etc. And almost like an analog computer, sitting there over 10 years out in the countryside. People must have thought, Who is this madman? And creating a system which is still used today by the architects who are working on the Sagrada Família to try and finish it for 2026.

2026 will be the 100-year anniversary of Gaudi’s death. He died at age 73, after getting hit by a streetcar. As the story goes, his ragged clothes led passers-by to think he was a tramp, not the city’s most famous architect. In any case: a team of architects is continuing Gaudi’s work on the Sagrada Familia. By necessity, they are amending his original plans. To some, this is a betrayal of Gaudí’s original genius. Gijs van Hensbergen is not one of those people; he thinks it’s in line with what Gaudí himself would have done.

VAN HENSBERGEN: Well, clearly, we can’t go back to just what was built by Gaudí. Gaudí knew equally that future generations would have to work on it. And he talked about Chartres and other cathedrals saying that God took 400 years to finish Chartres. It took 600 years to finish Barcelona Cathedral, in the Gothic Quarter. And he said that God is very patient as a client. He doesn’t want to be hurried.

Gaudí was constantly tinkering with his designs, sometimes changing them from day to day. Execution-by-tinkering: it turns out this is a common thread among many creatives.

ISAACSON: Leonardo da Vinci worked on the Mona Lisa for more than 15 years.

Walter Isaacson again.

ISAACSON: During that period, he was dissecting the human face, figuring out every nerve and muscle that touches the lips, figuring out how details of sight go right into the center of the retina, but what you see out of the corner of your eye are shadows and colors. So he uses all of that knowledge, for example, to make the details on the Mona Lisa’s smile go straight, but the shadows and colors go up, so the smile flickers on and off, depending on how you’re looking at it. He also has it so perfectly anatomically correct that it’s the most amazing and memorable smile ever created.

All of these things he does over the course of this very long period as he’s living in Milan, and then in Rome, and then in Florence, and then taking it across the Alps with him when he goes to Paris, he adds layer after layer of tiny translucent brush strokes until he can make what is probably the most perfect painting ever done.

“The most perfect painting ever done?” That’s pretty hard to quantify. There are people, however, who’ve spent a great deal of time trying to quantify different trends in painting over the centuries, different styles of execution, and their relative value.

David GALENSON: I am David Galenson. I’m a professor of economics at the University of Chicago.

DUBNER: And you would describe your research specialty as what?

GALENSON: I study creativity. And really, more specifically, the life cycles of human creativity. What I’ve tried to do is find the process. You know, what are the mechanisms behind the discoveries?

Most great painters throughout history are considered innovators, at least on some dimension. But Galenson separates these innovators into two camps, what he calls experimentalists and conceptualists. Da Vinci and Gaudi would fit into the experimentalist category.

GALENSON: These are empiricists. They’re interested in perception, observation, generalization about the real world. They have very vague but very ambitious goals. And because they’re vague, they’re uncertain how to achieve them. So they work by trial and error. These are the people who never reach their goal. They are never satisfied.

Another example would be Paul Cézanne.

GALENSON: Very near the end of his life, he wrote to a younger artist. He said, “The progress needed is endless.” And that’s experimental creativity. You never can reach the goal.

Cézanne wanted to fuse the realism of the old master paintings he loved with the immediacy of a new style, impressionism.

GALENSON: Impressionism was, as the name implies, it was an ephemeral, momentary art. So Cézanne was frustrated with impressionism, with the superficiality. There’s no depth in impressionist paintings. These are all just on the surface. He set out to combine the bright colors of impressionism with the solidity of the old masters. So Cézanne set out to do something that was essentially impossible, but he spent then the next 40 years trying to do it.

For instance: in his later years, he kept painting the view of a mountain near his home, Mont Sainte-Victoire.

GALENSON: If you just take all the textbooks of art history that you can find, there’s no single painting by Cézanne that appears more than a few times. But he painted Mont Sainte-Victoire about 50 times over a period of about 30 years. If those were all a single painting, all of those illustrations were of a single painting, that would be the single-most-reproduced painting in the history of modern art. Now, they’re all different. He’s never doing the same thing. He’s always changing. But he’s changing so gradually that a lot of people don’t perceive it at the time.

So the experimentalist, as Galenson sees it, innovates by tweaking and tinkering, by methodically moving the needle an inch at a time. Meanwhile, the conceptualists?

GALENSON: As the name implies, these are people who have new ideas. These are theorists.

Galenson’s favorite example? Pablo Picasso — who, like Gaudi, was from Catalonia. But they were not pals.

VAN HENSBERGEN: Picasso famously loathed Gaudi.

That’s Gijs Van Hensbergen again. In addition to the Gaudi biography, he wrote a book about Picasso’s most famous painting, Guernica.

VAN HENSBERGEN: He saw him as the opposite of what he was doing. But they both shared a reverence for popular art.

Anyway, Picasso’s process of creation, as described by David Galenson:

GALENSON: Basically, the process is, you come to a new discipline, you learn the rules, and you say, I don’t like some very basic rule. And I get rid of it.

Picasso’s rule-breaking masterpiece? Les Demoiselles d’Avignon.

GALENSON: Now, that’s a painting that Pablo Picasso made when he was 26 years old. And it wasn’t just casually done. When Picasso was about 25, he was a young, struggling painter in Paris. And the king of the hill was about 10 years older, Henri Matisse. Matisse had made a large figure painting called The Joy of Life, that made a tremendous splash at the annual salon. And Picasso was very jealous.

So, here’s this young 25-year-old who starts making preparatory drawings. In total, he makes between 400-500 preparatory drawings for this — the largest painting he’s ever attempted, by far. That’s the most preparatory works that have ever been made in Western history for a single painting, as far as we know. Here’s a 25-year-old who’s not really thriving economically, but he takes essentially a full year to prepare to make this one painting. So, he’s deliberately creating a masterpiece. That painting is in 95 percent of all the textbooks of art that cover the early 20th century. No other painting is in more than half.

DUBNER: Now, let me ask you this. The way you just described that process, however, doesn’t sound so different from the way you described the process of the experimental innovators. Over and over, repeating and repeating.

GALENSON: The difference is the following: If you x-ray a Cézanne, you’ll find there’s nothing underneath the paint. He painted, what the artists say, “directly.” He just began using a brush on canvas. He made no preparatory drawings for his paintings, ever. The whole point actually was to be spontaneous. That was the point of impressionism. Whereas, if you x-ray the Demoiselle, you’ll find very precise under-drawing. And it’s not an accident. If you go to the Picasso Museum, where they have these dozens and dozens of sketchbooks, you’ll find that every figure in that painting was planned extremely carefully. So that by the time he began painting the painting, he knew what it was going to look like.

See, this was the first thing I discovered about the difference between experimental and conceptual artists. That it’s not just that they paint differently, but they want to paint differently. The conceptual artist wants to know, before he starts — before he picks up a brush — he wants to know exactly what the painting is going to look like. Whereas the experimental painter goes out of his way to avoid that. They want to make discoveries in the process of painting. So, it comes down to this fundamental question: Do you make the discovery before you start working or while you’re working? And in discipline after discipline, that is going to be the key question separating the two types of innovator.

“Experimental innovators,” Galenson has written, “work by trial and error, and arrive at their major contributions gradually, late in life. In contrast, conceptual innovators make sudden breakthroughs by formulating new ideas, usually at an early age.” Picasso invented cubism in his 20’s; Bob Dylan wrote “Like a Rolling Stone” when he was 24.

GALENSON: You can get an idea at any age. But the most radical ideas come not necessarily when you’re young chronologically, although you tend to be, but when you’re new to a discipline.

Experimental innovators, meanwhile, build up to their masterpieces. Virginia Woolf was 44 when she wrote To the Lighthouse; Cézanne was still painting Mont Sainte-Victoire when he died, at 67. The novelist Jennifer Egan is now in her mid-fifties. By the time Egan won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award for her book A Visit From the Goon Squad, she’d been writing for a couple decades. She’d only completed three novels during that time — and the one that followed, Manhattan Beach, took another seven years. One reason it takes so long: her process; the way she executes the idea.

EGAN: Once I write that first draft — which, in the case of Manhattan Beach was 1,400 pages, and type it up, I do many, many, many revisions, usually by hand on hard copies. But we’re talking ultimately 40 to 50 drafts per chapter. So there’s a lot of fixing and problem-solving. And in certain ways, that’s where a lot of the writing happens. It’s the big moves that I’m trying to get a hold of in that first draft. And then once I have those, then I can work with it and try to bring it all up many, many notches to be something that’s actually readable and entertaining. My first drafts are full of clichés. I loathe clichés. It’s not that you can’t write them in the first place. They have to be replaced. So, ultimately, I have weighed every word. To use a cliché.

Okay, so if your style of execution is to produce draft after draft after draft; or sketch after sketch or prototype after prototype — how do you judge what’s working and what’s not? Every domain is different, of course: writing a novel is different from building a better means to capture kinetic energy. But in every case: how do you measure the success of your execution? When Jennifer Egan was writing her first novel, The Invisible Circus, she did not have a reliable way to do that.

EGAN: I wrote in a vacuum, and that was just wildly unsuccessful. I spent two years writing — horrible. Just dreadful. And this isn’t even being over-harsh. I’m never going to make that mistake again.

Ever since then, Egan has relied on a writers’ group. Even today, after all the success and all the awards.

EGAN: It includes a couple of the people I’ve been showing work to since 1989. We have an essayist, a playwright, a poet, and then a couple of fiction writers.

What the writers’ group provides Egan is something that every creator needs constantly, whether you’re working in the arts, in science, in business, whatever: feedback.

* * *

It’s not that great ideas are easy; but without good execution, an idea doesn’t mean much. A key component to execution — a key component to getting better at anything — is feedback. The writer Jennifer Egan was telling us that she still relies on a writers’ group to workshop her current novel-in-progress.

EGAN: Even with Manhattan Beach.

That’s her latest book, an historical novel published in 2017.

EGAN: I had an idea about a present-day narrator who would be kind of winking at the reader because we all know that it’s not 1934 anymore. That was so dead on arrival.

DUBNER: And when you get that kind of feedback, and you decide ultimately that it’s fruitful and that it’s correct, what does that feel like?

EGAN: It feels like a relief, because usually I can feel when something is not working. Sometimes things aren’t working because I just haven’t spent enough time making them better.

DUBNER: Did you have to beat up your writing group a little bit after you started winning these awards and say, “Listen, I still need you to come at me as hard as you did”?

EGAN: No, they they did it. I would recommend that anyone do this. People are afraid of hearing criticism. And I think often when they say, “What did you think of something?” you know that they don’t really want to know if you have any thought that isn’t positive. And I so understand that. I mean, it’s awful to hear that something you think is working isn’t. And I’ve sat there, and many times thought, “I’m done. I’m never coming back here. It’s been great. You guys suck. You don’t get it. Other people tell me I’m great.”

But even by the end of the meeting I’m already — I can feel my brain kind of prickling around whatever it is and I’m already starting to think of solutions. So it hurts, but it’s not going to kill you. I feel like criticism that’s wrong-headed, okay, I don’t agree with it. Fine. Keep going. There’s a fear that somehow criticism can break you. I don’t believe it.

DUBNER: Do you have any advice for people who have that fear, which I would guess is probably 95 percent of humanity?

EGAN: I would say think very carefully about which is worse: finding out now that this work has problems or finding out after everyone has told you it’s perfect and you’ve published it. You’re going to find out.

Teresa AMABILE: I think the best thing we could do is to find one honest person who you know will give you honest feedback.

Teresa Amabile is a psychologist who studies creativity.

AMABILE: Ideally, you’ll have an artist friend, or maybe it’s a teacher, who knows you reasonably well, whom you trust, to whom you can say, “I really want some feedback on this, but I need you to not dampen my spark here, if you would.” I think that’s much better than trying to get feedback from a large number of individuals. One or two people who will be honest with you, but who can who can give you the feedback in a way that you’ll be able to use it and not be not be destroyed by it. We can manage our feedback givers.

But what if you aren’t in a position to manage your feedback givers? What if your feedback givers are your employer, or your funder, or your customer?

Don HAHN: We test-screen everything we do. We bring in a living room full of people and show them the movie and then sit around afterwards and have a really painful discussion about things they didn’t understand, or story points they didn’t like, or characters they didn’t like.

That’s Don Hahn.

HAHN: And I’m a filmmaker and I’ve made most of my career producing animation for Disney. But now I do a lot of documentary work.

Among the films he’s worked on: Who Framed Roger Rabbit?; Beauty and the Beast — both the animated and live versions.

HAHN: And The Lion King, a little story about a lion cub that gets framed for murder.

Hollywood calculus, as we all know, can be strange. A team of filmmakers can work on something for a couple years — and then have it quashed by a room full of little kids who get squirmy at a test screening.

HAHN: And then you have to go away and decide whether they’re right or not. And you can also dismiss it to your peril, or dismiss it to your advantage. Gosh, and there’s endless stories about that. In Pocahontas, the animated movie, there was a love song that Mel Gibson as John Smith sang to Pocahontas. And he was tied up in a tent and Pocahontas came in and they sang this beautiful love song under the moon. It’s a lovely song. But the audience just checked out and kids started wiggling in their seats and moms started running out for a bathroom break. So it got cut from the movie.

But conversely, there’s a song in The Little Mermaid called “Part of Your World,” and it’s Ariel’s “I-want” song. And that was a real kind of wiggler song where in previews, even though it happens early in the movie and even though it’s crucial to Ariel’s character, our executive at the studio said, “Ah, kids are wiggling during this. We have to cut it out. It’s not working.” And he was wrong. The directors and the animators came back and said, “Kids may wiggle during it but it’s the kind of song you need in these movies. It’s a statement of what she wants. It’s a statement of her goals and passions and without it, it’s ambiguous what she wants.” So it stayed in the movie and became one of the most favorite songs in the movie.

You can see why producers and studios might be cautious: a big film is a huge investment. The desire for feedback has deep roots in Hollywood, including Walt Disney himself.

HAHN: Walt Disney used to famously walk around the studio, and he would tell the story of, let’s say, Pinocchio to a couple of guys in the coffee lounge. And then he’d get their reaction and then he’d go down the road to a couple of secretaries and tell them the story. And so he was workshopping again and again and again this story. And every time refining it in his mind a little bit more until it became very close to what was in the film.

A documentary film, meanwhile, which is what Don Hahn is mostly making these days—

HAHN: Documentaries are a little different because you’re telling an existing story. But you have to go where the story takes you, and when you start out you may not know all the ins and outs of the plot. So, it’s a little like putting a jigsaw puzzle together without the picture on the box. You’re kind of feeling your way through the dark. And a lot of times there’s discoveries halfway through the making of the movie.

We did a movie for Disney Nature called Chimpanzee about a mother and her little baby chimp. And halfway through the shooting, the mother went out one night and was killed by a panther. So you just go, “Okay, I guess we’re done.” But over the ensuing weeks the alpha male in that tribe of chimpanzees adopted that little baby, otherwise it would have died. And that’s something that just never happens. Jane Goodall even said she didn’t ever see that in the wild. So sometimes you have to just open up enough to go kind of ride the horse in the direction that it’s going to have the movie tell you what it wants.

Another documentary that comes to mind is the 2007 film The King of Kong, directed by Seth Gordon.

Seth GORDON: It was definitely a let’s-see-what-happens mission in the sense that we had no idea what would transpire.

Gordon’s made a lot of big movies and TV shows since then; he also worked on a documentary version of Freakonomics; that’s how I got to know him. The King of Kong is a great story about a couple of guys competing for the world-record score in the arcade game Donkey Kong. There’s the self-important defender, Billy Mitchell, and the underdog challenger, Steve Wiebe.

Steve WIEBE: I was just doing it because I thought it would be a neat achievement. I didn’t think it would ever blow up to be a big story.

GORDON: I had been going to the arcade featured in that film in New Hampshire, it’s called Fun Spot, since I was a kid. And I was aware that there was a culture of gamers for whom that was where the battles would be waged, and the official scores would be set. Because they have all the legitimate old machines. And I knew of Billy Mitchell, but I didn’t know if he was going to commit to be filmed by us. So that was a big question.

And then the other was, how would he and Steve be on camera? And because those were very much unknowns, we were simultaneously chasing other rivalries in the video game world, and we thought it was going to be a film that was about portraits of these rivalries. But because Billy is such an extraordinary person and masterful storyteller himself, he made the movie become about him.

Billy MITCHELL: Competitive gaming? When you want to attach your name to a world record, when you want your name written into history? You have to pay the price.

GORDON: Because of the situations that he created and the actions that he took, all the other storylines paled in comparison.

It makes sense that you can’t foretell how a documentary will unfold. But what about scripted entertainment? How locked-in are you there, and how flexible do you need to be?

HAHN: So you start out with a script and make it as good as you can. And then as you actually get into the production, you allow yourself to improvise and make it better. So animation is a real iterative process. You can visit and revisit and revisit, and sometimes it takes five or six or seven times of putting the movie up on reels to look at it and then have it fall apart and rebuild it and tear it down and rebuild it before it starts to be anything.

And the reason is the leap from the written word to a visual storytelling medium is huge. It’s like the leap from a recipe on a page to a beautifully prepared dinner that you’re actually ingesting. So on a page, how do you describe a perfectly cooked steak with just the right seasoning? You try your best, but once you get that in the frying pan and start to cook that steak, it’s a whole other thing.

And I think that’s why some people shy away from the making part because you can have perfection on a piece of paper and say, “This is a beautifully designed piece of architecture, or a fantastic recipe, or a great script,” and it’s going to really go south when you try to execute it, no matter what it is. And it’s just experience and craft that allows you to maintain some sort of order and work that written idea into something that’s actually visual up on the screen.

Again, as we’ve been hearing from all sorts of creatives: the execution of an idea requires determination, craft, experience, maybe a little luck. It’s almost enough to persuade you, at least in some cases, that if there were a competition between idea and execution, the idea isn’t even such a formidable competitor.

HAHN: There’s an argument to say a film like E.T. or Star Wars or Roger Rabbit was a great idea out of the box, and anybody could have made that movie. But I subscribe to the other approach, which is you can take a mediocre idea and put great people on it and come up with a great movie. So, take the Pixar movie Ratatouille. It’s the worst idea for a movie ever. It’s like, “Let’s put rats in a kitchen and we’ll make an animated film about it.” It’s a horrible idea. And there’s plenty of really good ideas — we’ve all seen movies that had tremendous promise and the buzz was great about them and then you go see you in the theater and they’re awful.

Filmmaking is, by its nature, a hugely collaborative project. Dozens, maybe hundreds of people, all with specific skills and tasks. It’s a creative team. That is a common construct these days, in many realms.

ISAACSON: We sometimes think that there’s some guy or gal who goes into a garage or garret, and they have a light bulb moment, and that’s how innovation happens. But that’s not the way it is. Great scientific research these days is going to be done in large collaborative units. When you look at how people are going to do gene editing, or CRISPR technology, or, for that matter, figure out background gravitational waves, these are the type of papers that are going to have dozens of names on them, or hundreds of names on them. And it’s not going to be like Newton sitting under an apple tree, or Galileo peering into a telescope, because this ability to make great mental leaps is now augmented and amplified by our ability to work together collaboratively.

AMABILE: Most work done in organizations now is done on a project basis, by teams. That has advantages because you’re combining the efforts of many people, you’re combining the viewpoints of many people. But oh, it’s hard.

Teresa Amabile has studied creativity in corporate settings by having people keep daily work diaries.

AMABILE: It’s really hard to work effectively in a team. It’s hard to manage a team effectively. And there are a number of things that can help. One is to make sure that you have a nice diversity of skills in the team, where people are not completely overlapping in what they know, because that redundancy is not really helpful, but where people do have different perspectives and different knowledge base to some extent that they can bring to the problem.

It’s also helpful to have different cognitive styles. So doing things better within a paradigm or differently outside paradigms, you’re likely to make a lot of progress in a project if you have both kinds of cognitive style on a team, but only if you have people who can effectively translate between the different styles. They have to be able to talk to each other and very often you find conflict arising. “That idea is crazy, how would you possibly think that that would work?” And on the other hand, “What are you doing, you’re stuck in the status quo, you’re not doing anything at all exciting, you’re boring.” And we actually in our research saw a team that had to just call a halt to its project because we had these very different cognitive styles and there was no one who could mediate between them. That can be someone else on the team, it can be a manager, but you have to watch out for that.

There’s one more thing a successful creative team needs.

AMABILE: You need a high level of trust. You need people to be to be willing to give each other a little slack, to give each other the benefit of the doubt. Under those circumstances, if you’ve got that diversity of skills and styles you can do great things on a team.

But some creative endeavors tend to be solitary, even if you routinely submit your work for feedback. And some creative people just prefer to work on their own. So how do those artists ship? How do they execute ideas without a team, without the boss or studio or publisher watching over them?

Dean SIMONTON: There are some people who, they are only creative in the morning. They will get up early, they will write so much, and then that’s it for the rest of the day.

Dean Simonton is a psychologist who for years has studied the productivity habits of creative giants.

SIMONTON: There’s others that can only work late at night after everybody has gone to bed. There’s others that make their own time. They have a cue, like who was it? I think it was Schiller, who had to have the smell of rotten apples. And when he felt like being creative, he’d pull out a rotten apple. And that would cue him to be creative.

DUBNER: What about you, when you’re working?

SIMONTON: I’m generally a morning person.

DUBNER: And do you need to cue or trick yourself in any way? Or do you sit down, and you put away the distractions and get to work?

SIMONTON: I, first of all I pick the morning because there’s the fewest distractions, and the smell of black coffee really helps as well. Okay. Pretty ordinary.

DUBNER: Do you think if you smelled it and didn’t actually consume the caffeine, it would have the same effect?

SIMONTON: Oh I have to have it. I need it.

DUBNER: So it’s not just the smell. The smell is the cue to the physiological reaction.

SIMONTON: No, I need the caffeine in my system. But then, usually by a few hours, I’m kind of pooped out. Sometimes I get rejuvenated before I go to bed. But then, it’s usually a glass of wine that does it. So go figure.

DUBNER: So, let’s say the pattern that you just described happens to be the one that I subscribe to. I’m a morning person. I get up early. I like those hours quiet, alone, etc. So if you’re that person, and let’s say you have four or five hours of really hardcore productivity and creativity, then you have the rest of the day. And let’s say you’re lucky enough to have a life like an academic, like you do, or a writer, like I do, and you can actually choose what to do. No one’s telling you what to do. What do you do there, with your now diminished capacity for creativity or productivity?

SIMONTON: Well, fortunately, guess what? You know this is the case. There’s so much else that’s involved with being creative. Like when the proofs arrive. You know? I can’t do proofreading in the morning. I don’t want to waste my creativity doing proofreading in the morning. The things on your reading list that you have to catch up on. And particularly when you’re doing what I’m doing, scientific research, you have to find out what other people are doing. I review a lot of submitted manuscripts and grant proposals.

DUBNER: Right. So you don’t want to waste your best brain cells on all that stuff?

SIMONTON: Oh, no. I mean don’t tell them that I’m only working at half-mast. You know?

DUBNER: I think you just did, but that’s okay.

Getting up early, drinking coffee; or staying up late and drinking wine; working alone, or with collaborators — plainly, there’s no single route for getting good work done. Everyone has their own strategies for executing ideas.

SIMONTON: Too many people want a one-size-fits-all. “What do I need to do to be creative?” And I’m afraid there’s no one-size-fits-all. There’s a few things that everybody has to adhere to. You have to know what you’re doing, and you have to be willing to fail. You have to be committed to achieving in that domain. You have to be reasonably bright, and so forth. But beyond that, some people have red socks and some people have purple socks.

* * *

Freakonomics Radio is produced by Stitcher and Dubner Productions. This episode was produced by Matt Frassica, with help from Stephanie Tam and Harry Huggins. Our staff also includes Alison Craiglow, Greg Rippin, and Zack Lapinski. Our theme song is “Mr. Fortune,” by the Hitchhikers; all the other music was composed by Luis Guerra. You can subscribe to Freakonomics Radio on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Here’s where you can learn more about the people and ideas in this episode:

SOURCES

Teresa Amabile, psychologist and professor emerita at the Harvard Business School.

Jennifer Egan, novelist and journalist.

David Galenson, economist at the University of Chicago.

Margaret Geller, astrophysicist at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Seth Gordon, filmmaker.

Don Hahn, filmmaker.

Gijs van Hensbergen, art historian.

Walter Isaacson, biographer and professor of history at Tulane University.

Jessica O. Matthews, inventor and c.e.o. of Uncharted Power.

Dean Simonton, professor emeritus of psychology at University of California, Davis.

RESOURCES

Creativity In Context by Teresa Amabile (Routledge 1996).

A Visit From the Goon Squad by Jennifer Egan (Knopf 2010).

The Invisible Circus by Jennifer Egan (Knopf 1994).

Manhattan Beach by Jennifer Egan (Scribner 2017).

Gaudi by Gijs van Hensbergen (Harper Perennial 2003).

Guernica by Gijs van Hensbergen (Bloomsbury Publishing 2005).

Leonardo da Vinci by Walter Isaacson (Simon & Schuster 2017).

Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson (Simon & Schuster 2011).

EXTRA

“How to Be Creative,” Freakonomics Radio (2018).

“Where Does Creativity Come From (and Why Do Schools Kill It Off)?,” Freakonomics Radio (2018).

“Where Do Good Ideas Come From?,” Freakonomics Radio (2019).

The post A Good Idea Is Not Good Enough (Ep. 369) appeared first on Freakonomics.

from Dental Care Tips http://freakonomics.com/podcast/creativity-4/

0 notes