Шпионка против Никиты.В чем и где разница. :)
Болталка. Для разговоров обо всем.2335
LenNik, Вчера, 21:52:13
Жизнь после ЛФН!1390
claire, Вчера, 19:35:46
Once Upon a Time/Однажды в сказке74
Vикторина, Вчера, 19:06:04
Угадайка в стиле ЛФН.5116
LenNik, Вчера, 18:11:39
Натка, Вчера, 17:24:51
luigiperelli, Вчера, 17:12:51
Фанфики по сериалу Зачарованные | Charmed - Fanfictions
КУПКИН, 2 Окт 2017, 13:47
Создала эту тему вовсе не для боестолкновений поклонников сериалов. И не для поливания одного из них. Просто интересно прочитать чужое мнение. Ну и поделиться своим.
ALIAS vs. LA FEMME NIKITA
Billie compares and contrasts these two great dramas led by butt-kicking females.
By: Billie Doux
When "Alias" debuted in 2001, many fans of "La Femme Nikita" were outraged and angry by what they felt was a clear case of major league rip-off. I wasn't one of those fans. In 2001, I hadn't seen a single episode of "Nikita."
But I was immediately in love with "Alias." It is an amazingly strong, dramatic spy thriller with:
-- a Buffy-like kick-ass heroine (Sydney)
-- a gorgeous French leading man (Vaughn)
-- a wry, experienced, expressionless super agent (Jack)
-- Sydney's villainous, shuddery boss (Sloane)
-- Sydney's dragon lady agent mother (Irina)
-- Sydney's friend and sounding board (Dixon)
-- and a brilliant computer nerd (Marshall).
In the summer of 2005, one of my readers strongly recommended that I try "La Femme Nikita," and fortunately, I listened to her. Although it started more slowly than "Alias" and many of the early episodes weren't that good, "Nikita" gradually pulled me in. By the time I reached season two, I was crazy about it. And I finally understood why so many "Nikita" fans were so deeply pissed off about "Alias."
Because "Nikita" is an amazingly strong, dramatic spy thriller with:
-- a Buffy-like kick-ass heroine (Nikita)
-- a gorgeous French-Canadian leading man (Michael)
-- a wry, experienced, expressionless super agent (also Michael)
-- Nikita's villainous, shuddery boss (Operations)
-- Operations' dragon lady second-in-command (Madeline)
-- Nikita's friend and sounding board (Walter)
-- and a brilliant computer nerd (Birkoff).
Can you see where I'm going with this?
Each show ran for four full seasons, followed by an abbreviated fifth season. That's a pretty interesting coincidence. "Alias" was cancelled abruptly in the middle of its fifth season. "Nikita" ended unexpectedly with its fourth; fan reaction and save-our-show campaigns brought it back for a brief fifth season.
There were many differences, of course. "Alias" was on ABC. It had a bigger budget, and it showed. "Nikita" aired on the USA network as well as many other stations all over the world, and was filmed in Toronto. Since "Nikita" ended its run in 2001 when "Alias" began, "Alias" was able to tap into the best of "Nikita" (I won't use the term "ripped off") and avoid some of its mistakes.
I love both shows. "Alias" has its strengths. "Nikita" has its strengths. Yes, I prefer one over the other; I finally came down on one side. I'll eventually tell you which one, and why. But first, I'm going to do a side-by-side comparison.
SYDNEY VERSUS NIKITA
As far as heroines goes, "Alias" wins, hands down. I'm extremely fond of Nikita herself, played with heart and verve by the strikingly beautiful and athletic Peta Wilson. But Jennifer Garner was the stronger actress, and Sydney Bristow a more interesting character. Sydney was why we watched.
Nikita was something of a cipher. When we first met her, she was young and homeless, thrown out by her mother. We never learned her last name. During the first half of season one, Nikita had something of a Pygmalion/Galatea relationship with her trainer and mentor, Michael, and he told her what to do. Nikita constantly led with her heart, and it constantly got her into trouble.
Sydney, on the other hand, kicked major butt from the start of the first episode. Heroic, charming, athletic, brilliant, emotional, and sexy, Sydney was the ultimate heroine, and Jennifer Garner was perfect for the part.
I think this difference was illuminated by their, pardon the expression, aliases. The exotic wigs and cocktail dresses that Jennifer Garner wore on "Alias" were so special that they became a trademark of the series. Peta Wilson also wore some stunning and exotic outfits while undercover on "Nikita," but it wasn't what made "Nikita" special. And the few times she wore a wig, it never quite worked.
MICHAEL VERSUS VAUGHN... AND JACK
My favorite character on "Alias," other than Sydney, was Sydney's father, super agent Jack Bristow (Victor Garber). From the very first episode, Jack's expressionless poker face and dry sarcasm just reeled me in. Jack's love for Sydney and the way it developed from estrangement into closeness was the emotional core of "Alias."
Don't get me wrong. I liked our romantic lead Vaughn (Michael Vartan), too. At first too much of a boy scout, the utterly gorgeous Vaughn developed some interesting darkness over the course of the series... but possibly not enough. A recent article on Salon.com referred to Vaughn as "chronically boring." I wouldn't go that far -- I still wanted Sydney and Vaughn to live happily ever after together in the end -- but I think the writer had a point. After the dissolution of SD-6 and the consummation of his relationship with Sydney, Vaughn was never as exciting as he could have been.
Which brings me to Michael (Roy Dupuis) on "Nikita." It seems obvious to me that both Jack and Vaughn were based on different aspects of the character of Michael. Michael was cold, expressionless, mysterious... romantic, and utterly gorgeous. Michael was an extremely strong leading man, and the writers wrote for him. The character of Michael was the focus of "Nikita," much as Sydney Bristow was the focus of "Alias."
When it comes right down to it, I love Jack. But I love Michael more.
THE LOVE ANGLE
When I was deeply into Sydney's undercover mission at SD-6 during the first two seasons of "Alias", I kept wanting Sydney and Vaughn to disregard everything and have a reckless, passionate affair. I was so disappointed that they never did. One thing I loved about "Nikita" is that it is exactly what happened with Michael and Nikita. It was like wish fulfillment.
Let's face it. The Sydney/Vaughn romance was a pale thing compared to Michael and Nikita, star-crossed lovers extraordinaire. Imprisoned by Section One, ordered to have sex with others in the line of duty, working together but forbidden literally on the pain of death to get emotionally involved, Michael and Nikita defied their keepers and fell in love anyway. Their clandestine affair eventually became their reason to live, and our reason to watch.
How did they keep that love affair so vital for five seasons? Part of it was that Roy Dupuis and Peta Wilson had some major chemistry going on, and the relationship built so slowly. For a long time, there were meaningful glances, brief conversations with undertones, making love... but only undercover, and under orders. For a very long time, I had no idea how Michael truly felt about Nikita. Michael is an emotionally dysfunctional hero, distant and damaged. In the early seasons, Michael knew that Nikita loved him and he cruelly manipulated her emotions more than once in the line of duty. But later, he risked death just for one hour alone with her. What can I tell you? I'm a sucker for stuff like that.
Frankly, the most interesting romantic couple on "Alias" wasn't Sydney and Vaughn. It was by far and away Sydney's parents, CIA agent Jack Bristow and KGB assassin Irina Derevko. The Jack/Irina relationship began with treachery, since Irina originally married Jack under orders so that she could spy on him. Their strong emotional bond was just fascinating, especially when they were trying to kill each other. The only person that Jack loved more than Irina was their daughter, Sydney.
SECTION ONE VS. SPY FAMILY
It might not be entirely fair to do a comparison here, because on "Alias," we went through SD-6, the CIA, and APO. But on "Nikita," there was only Section One.
Section One, "the most covert anti-terrorist organization on the planet," ostensibly did good while operating under a mandate of pure evil. The operatives of Section One were recruited from death row, and forced to perform or die; no one got out of Section One alive. Section One was personified by the villainous Operations (Eugene Robert Glazer), a man who ordered cancellation for bad guys, innocent people, and his own operatives as easily as he ordered dinner and a prostitute.
SD-6, run by the nefarious Arvin Sloane (Ron Rifkin), had something of the flavor of Section One. SD-6 pretended to be a covert branch of the CIA, but was in fact part of an evil alliance; when Sydney discovered this fact, she became a double agent for the real CIA in order to bring down Sloane. But the SD-6 plot ended in the middle of season two, and the setting shifted to the CIA. I have never understood why they did that, because the SD-6 story was a particularly strong one. I read somewhere that the audience found SD-6 confusing. I didn't find it confusing. In fact, I wonder if "Alias" just never recovered from the loss of SD-6. It was never quite the same afterward.
Two of the strongest characters on both shows strongly resembled each other. They were Section One's second-in-command, Madeline (Alberta Watson), and Sydney's mother, Irina (Lena Olin). Both were women of a certain age. Both were gorgeous, brilliant, ruthless, and duplicitous. I gotta say, too, that I just realized that their fates were similar. Coincidence? I don't think so.
I loved the darkness and paranoia of Section One, and the forbidden romance between Michael and Nikita. It was what made "Nikita" unique. But I also loved the complex relationships of the extended spy family on "Alias": Sydney and her parents, Jack and Irina; Sydney's half-sister Nadia and her father Arvin Sloane; Irina's evil sisters Katya and Yelena. I used to fantasize that Sark was a relative, too. Wouldn't that have been fun?
HOW THEY ENDED
I gotta say that I think "Alias" had the better ending.
"Alias" started out phenomenally well. The pilot was extraordinary television, and the first two seasons were outstanding. Seasons three and four, though... not so much. Season five began badly, but they pulled out all the stops and created an ending worthy of the series. (Go read my episode review! http://www.billiedou...alias5x17.html)
"Nikita" was different. It started slowly with not so good episodes, but by season two, it was going strong. It got better and better until it peaked in the middle of season four. And then it got cancelled, and it was as if the air went out of it. They rebounded with a good resolution of the story in the final episodes of season five, though.
WHICH WAS BETTER?
Which do I like better, "Alias" or "Nikita"? They both have their strong points, as outlined above. And I haven't stopped loving "Alias" by any means, especially the first two seasons. Hey, if you like action more, "Alias" may be your cup of tea.
But I gotta say, I think "Nikita" is better. Or maybe I just love it more. "Nikita" is purer, more focused, much darker, and infinitely more romantic, since the Michael/Nikita relationship is the core of the series. I'm a romantic. What can I say.
Billie Doux has reviewed every episode of "Alias" and "La Femme Nikita." All of her reviews are available at http://www.billiedoux.com/ .
Сопоставив то, что сказано Билли (так и не поняла, какого пола этот человек…) с увиденным в «Шпионке», кое-что прояснила для себя. Пожалуй, Alias более правдива и приближена к реальности, чем «Никита» - действие разворачивается на фоне реально существующей службы ЦРУ; актеры тоже больше походят на «шпионский тип» - лица незапоминающиеся, характеры неприметные. Прошу не считать эти слова «поливанием» - здесь просто субъективное впечатление от увиденного.
Заметно, что «боевые» сцены и спецэффекты в «Шпионке» более дорогие, чем в ЛФН. Но боевым сценам «Никиты» верю больше, чем им же в Alias, потому что когда атлетичная Пета делает удар – это убедительно, а когда хрупкая балерина Гарнер изображает, что бьет кому-то морду, это выглядит, как театральная постановка. Короче, в бою героиня Гарнер отличается от Петы, как китайское фэнтези от боксерского матча. Может, это и зрелищно, но не так здорово для правдивости эффектов и сопереживания зрителя.
В общем ППКС-ну автору статьи в выводе: предпочитаю «Никиту» «Шпионке» , потому что верю героям ЛФН и не верю действующим лицам «Шпионки». Драма героев «Никиты» задевает за живое и находит отклик внутри, в отличие от того, что рассказано в Alias. Но самое главное - для меня очевидно, что «харизма» актеров ЛФН и «химия», созданная ими на съемочной площадке, во много раз превосходит данные актерского состава «Шпионки».
Все вышесказанное – ИМХО, естественно.
Ветер (Пятница, 01 декабря 2006, 23:23:57) писал:
Ну что тут скажешь. Когда Шпионку впервые запустили по ОРТ (кстати, больше 1 сезона, кажется, не показали) я видела 1 серию.
Очень странное ощущение у меня было. Чувство досады от того, что сдули с ЛФН многое.
Потом я видела какие-то серии. И даже мне нравятся, как я уже писала, серии, снятые Тарантино (я видела три сериала, гле снимал Тарантино, и везде эти серии событие). Но Шпионка, на мой взгляд, - это изначально гораздо больше мелодрама, чем психология. Шпионка очень похожа на большое американское кино, на обычные американские боевики (есть злодей, есть положительный герой, который самоотверженно борется с ним). Мне не нравится в Шпионке проамериканская направленность (хотя странно искать там другую), но есть предел который я могу вытерпеть. В ЛФН ИМХО этот предел не достигнут. В ЛФН очень выдержано соотношение триллера и мелодраммы. И я смотрю его не ради них. Мне важнее тихие взгляды. Триллером я смогу наслабиться в "Без лица", а если мне захочется мелодрамы, я посмотрю "Нотингхилл".
Понятно почему появилась Шпионка. Америке была нужна своя, американская Никита. Не канадская, не австралийская, а своя родная девчонка из соседнего двора. И бороться она должна с врагами Америки. И очень по-американски выглядит беременность героини.
В этой связи мне понятна разница в наградах двух сериалов. Американцы не людят делиться наградами с чужаками, даже если эти чужаки - канадцы.
Однобокое обсуждение у нас, однако. Вот сказали бы свое слово поклонники сего произведенья, тем более, что тема так воинственно звучит У нас тут, оказывается, есть раздел "Шпионки", но особо активных поклонников не наблюдается.
Сообщение отредактировал Ветер: Суббота, 03 марта 2007, 19:03:34
0 посетителей читают эту тему: 0 участников и 0 гостей