Friday. YEAH!!!

[itsallovernow]

My Goldberg life continues, but I figured out that I only have to get my left brake light fixed today to prevent Jail Possibility #1. Therefore, after a run to Kinkos, I will run to Pep Boys. Then I will run back to the office.

I have been up since 6:30 a.m. In my world, that's still night time.

I know that I feel better when I write. I feel like a different person after writing the crack drabbles yesterday. Why, oh why do I not remember and act upon this?

I am ridiculously, insanely turned on by the previews for "Casino Royale", partly because Daniel Craig really is that hot, and has that "I could shoot you and not spill my martini" vibe going on, and partly because frankly, despite the misogynistic, anti-feminist overtones, I have always been a sucker for James Bond and running around with quips and cool gadgets. (I have proof that I am not a boy however, because I cannot watch them over and over again on the Spike TV repeats like M. can). I found the last few movies tolerable because I also have an embarrasing crush on Pierce Brosnan left over from my youth as a Remington Steel fangirl, but Daniel Craig is just a whole 'nother kind of sexy. And I have a weird affection for the current movies because Judi Dench as M is brilliant, even when the other women in the movies are morons.

I'm generally disappointed by the movies themselves, disappointed and a little disgusted, but I love the pre-movie time when I can imagine that they'll be all sexy and smart and exciting.

If M. tells me one more time in a fit of helpfulness that if I don't start dating, I'm going to turn into crazy cat lady, I'm going to kill him and bury him in a shallow grave, which actually will serve my purpose because you meet all sorts of nice men in jail, right? Tortured, handsom victims of the justice system, right? Who only need love and an escape route!!!!

I'm always a little baffled by random fannish response (in ways which I'm not baffled by equally odd things I read from my actual flist. It's like the lot of you have carte blanche to be happily nuts, but the not pre-approved are just crazy:) I recently read a comment that someone didn't like fannish relationships on-screen that were "blatant." This I don't get. Canon is canon, and subtext is subtext, and I see the fun in both, but you can't have it both ways. Well, you can and that's why we write fic, but, well, I'm a little baffled. I get disliking the pairing, wishing for a different one, but hmmmm. It's a different approach to the media experience, I guess. (I think, in particular, this comment was in response to Farscape and I can sort of understand not liking a character or pairing - ok, I really can't, but I do get the YMMV - but the relationship itself, the story of that relationship is one of the central themes and even if you hate it, how can you dislike that it's a theme and still watch the show?)

Comments

[scrubschick.livejournal.com]

'm going to kill him and bury him in a shallow grave, which actually will serve my purpose because you meet all sorts of nice men in jail, right? Tortured, handsome victims of the justice system, right? Who only need love and an escape route!!!!

Well, yes, but since you are demonstrably female, you would not wind up in the same institution as the Prison Break wannabes. So please to be avoiding the institutional diet, K?

Ditto on Judi Dench and Pierce Brosnan and Bond in general. I'm reserving judgement on the New Guy. I'll have to hit IMDb and figure out where I've seen him before. He certainly seems Bondish in the previews. There's something about cocky testosterone that just floats my boat so I'm hoping his will out.

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

He was in "Layer Cake", and "Munich" if either of those helps any:)

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

but the relationship itself, the story of that relationship is one of the central themes and even if you hate it, how can you dislike that it's a theme and still watch the show?

I think that, for people who dislike blatant on-screen romances, that sort of epic romance is never a theme, it's a plot device (and generally an overused one); what's irritating to them is that the show pretends it is. And I say this with love, because I verge on being one of those people, especially when it comes to Farscape... a good ensemble show, a good allegory for the chaotic, confusing, and often hostile world of adulthood, severely brought down in the last two years because it thought it was supposed to be first and foremost a romance, instead of secondarily a romance. I also disagree that a specific relationship is capable of being a theme, in the same way that a specific murder isn't a theme, it's an element of plot. Whether or not you get themes of romance or death/loss from that, respectively, depends a great deal on treatment. (In fact, I think to treat it in such a way that it does become a theme, it necessarily has to take the back seat to what goes on around it, because the death itself or the relationship itself are not revelatory of theme in and of themselves, but only due to their much wider context.) So I think that it's a fundamental disagreement over whether that romance is a central theme. If you don't see it as a theme, but just as an upstart plot device/development taking up a lot of screen time, it's not so difficult to keep watching.

I've developed a great disrespect for the portrayal of romantic love in media; I feel it's a manipulative plot device and borders on emotionally meaningless because it seeks to portray as actually profound and transcendant a feature of common human experience that's only supposed to feel that way for a brief period. I find romantic love portrayed as central to be emotionally dishonest and very prone to melodrama, and it's also intellectually exclusive; the goal of creating something transcendant between two people by necessity drowns out other characters and other thematic messages, because they're part of the external world that has to be transcended, and that collapses the intellectual and emotional depth of a show into something approaching flat very quickly.

However, I appreciate the carte blanche to be nuts. :)

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I have to ponder that for awhile:) I understand the dislike of romance, but I find it odd to see the comments of disliking the blatancy from a collective that seeks out explicit and blatant fan responses:)

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

a collective that seeks out explicit and blatant fan responses

I think my brain is slow cuz I just got back from the gym, but I'm not following this bit. :)

People are naturally baffling

[randomfreshink.livejournal.com]

>>I recently read a comment that someone didn't like fannish relationships on-screen that were "blatant."

Blatant? Well, one person's blatant is another person's subtext. Just how blatant do you have to get. And if it's on-screen, how is that fannish? (I suppose one could and should be a fan of one's work, but, well...hmmmm.)

I do think screen relationships are tough to pull off in a series. Go to far--folks unhappy. Go not far enough--folks unhappy. Go to far and have to undo everything because you've got a season of tension to keep simmering and could be all folks unhapppy.

But I also think there are those whose favorite part of the show is the bitching after--nothing is quite as fun as ragging on someone else. Getting to pull out all the snarkies--it can be addictive, too. And you have to watch so you can rip afterwards. It's not my kind of fun, but I do see the attraction. After all, there's MST.

Re: People are naturally baffling

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

It's true. I don't suppose any source has managed to never have fans turn a scathing eye on the way they handled something:)

[munchkin62.livejournal.com]

I am not a boy but I could watch the Bond movies (Sean Connery, Roger Moore) all darn day. Seriously. I love the music and the cheesetastic-ness. The Brosnan Bond films are more realistic so I like them, just not for the same reasons. BOND! I wish I had a BOND icon now. *sighs*

[thassalia.livejournal.com]

Hee- I can understand watching a marathon. I cannot understand watching the same one over and over again within several days. (I should be able to understand this, but I don't:)

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

I can totally do the Connerys and the Brosnans all day, but the Moores I find very tough. I used to be quite anti-Dalton, but I think I'd rather like him now. And Lazenby is surprisingly watchable; I think the problem is that the story, despite being very faithful to the book, is rather non-Bond.

The new Bond is, yes, eminently shaggable. He'll be good, I think.

[pathstotread.livejournal.com]

but the relationship itself, the story of that relationship is one of the central themes and even if you hate it, how can you dislike that it's a theme and still watch the show?

With this one sentence, you've managed to sum up a post I've had percolating for days about canon ships vs. fanon ships. In fact, I just wrote this a few days ago (the other fandom/ship I allude to is Max/Logan from Dark Angel): "But John/Aeryn is so ingrained with the storytelling that I find it hard to believe that a hardcore anti-J/A fan could sit through 4 seasons of Farscape without clawing their eyes out. It's everywhere. And in both of these cases, and this is going to sound condescending, I almost feel sad for people who don't enjoy the ships that I do. Because they're such an integral part of the storytelling, and some of the best moments, where the writing and the acting and everything just connects, are tied up in the ships. ("Do you love Aeryn Sun?" "Beyond hope." I rest my case.)"

So, yes, I completely agree.

[redstarrobot.livejournal.com]

I find it hard to believe that a hardcore anti-J/A fan could sit through 4 seasons of Farscape without clawing their eyes out.

You don't even need to be that hardcore. It happens. S4 had a lot of eye-clawing. But I think that to feel that the writing and acting connect in those moments, you have to be inclined to like them; I think some of that writing is eye-rollingly bad.