Spontaneous Musings

1. In strolling through my archives, I've realized that politics has always been an incendiary topic.
I lost three correspondents in 2008 election, two-die hard Hillary supporters, who were upset with my infrequent posts on the topic. And one-die hard McCain/Palin supporter, who was an ultra-conservative pro-Israel political science academic. I'd met her in person and knew she was conservative, just didn't realize she was THAT conservative. We got in a fight over Camilia Paglia and Sarah Palin of all things. She's long since disappeared. I wonder what she's thinking about politics now? The other two, I had long debates regarding the fact that as much as I respected Hillary Clinton, I did not think she had a chance in hell of winning over McCain/Palin, and wasn't charismatic enough to get elected. Also, there were too many people who hated her -- even back then.

Politics Redux

What's also interesting in the above link is most of the people commenting on it -- are long gone from DW/LJ. They've moved onto FB or other sites.

Puts things in perspective. We seem to be repeating ourselves.

2. In re-reading posts...I realized that not only was politics an incendiary topic, so was anything critiquing the Buffy fandom, critiquing the comics, critiquing Buffy or regarding Spike and Buffy relationship, or comparing Angel to Spike. (Although I still think the Doctor Who, The X-men/Marvel, General Hospital, and Supernatural Fandoms are far nuttier than the Buffy fandom ever was. Having dipped my toe in all of the above. Buffy had nothing on them. I'm thinking longevity probably adds to it. More time to attract bat-shit crazy-obsessed fans.)

My difficulty with Buffy, which is similar to my issues with most long-running television series. And that is a lack of logical plot and/or character continuity. Sometimes just from episode to episode. The comics were even worse in regards to continuity. Whedon brought back characters, and forgot various subplots.

Also, without exception, every nasty fight I had with the online Buffy fandom seemed to be about Spike (and/or whether the Buffy comics were canonical to the series.) It got tiring after a while.
( Read more... )

3. I apparently went on a Meta saving kick in 2009 (which is when my GeoCities site went down, and I found out that the only way I would be able to save all the meta I posted to the boards, would be to save it to my journal).

So if you want to find all my Buffy meta - go here: https://shadowkat.dreamwidth.org/2009/07/

Ghod, I wrote an embarrassingly amount of Buffy meta. I think the online equivalent of two 400 pages books worth. I wish I could say it was well written. There are a lot of typos and grammatical errors in there -- mainly because I proofed them myself and never had anyone else edit or beta them. (Too chicken to ask, also I didn't know you could do that. Many of them were literally written off-the-cuff.)

I think I finally got tired of defending my favorite character in the Whedonverse to folks.

4. I also wrote about Torchwood ...a bit along with other television shows.

* Torchwood - Children of Earth Miniseries Meta/Review

And other doctor who episodes. Didn't get the same number of responses though. Mainly because my knowledge of the Whoverse was rather limited in scope. And I'd never been a diehard fan. (I actually liked Torchwood better, more serialized and ensemble. Doctor Who was too much like those old hero saves person of the week shows dating back to Quantum Leap, The Fugitive, the Incredible Hulk, etc for me to really fall in love with it.)

5. The best posts...I think, may have been the personal ones, which were often flocked or privatized. Which is interesting. I just posted one that had been privatized to Word Press.

Tell Me A Story.

( personal essays vs. meta )

6. On a final note, a more melancholy one...what I mostly struck by wandering through these old posts is how many people have long since left the Dreamwidth and LJ forums (myself included -- I'm no longer on lj and am crossed out in others journals on that forum).

Some dead...I really miss embers_log.

Others just gone.

Most left in 2011, apparently. Some left in 2017. Gone to other forums, most likely.
I know half the ATPO Board is now on FB. That's where I interact with rahael, ponygirl2000, masq, midnight jane, anne1962, superplin, matcha, mamacunluna, and sometimes dochawk, Elle, D'H, and buffyannatator (who I'm no longer really following).

The other half is here. It's like all the women fled to FB, and all the men stayed on DW. And they both disparage the other medium. The FB group isn't found of DW/LJ and the DW group isn't fond of FB.

I find it hilarious. I've had these mirror-like discussions with both, where I'm either defending FB or DW.

And others, they jumped to other forums, I'm guessing.

Hmmm...it's a beautiful, the sun is out, the sky is blue...don't worry, I'm not going to break out into song. Although the song Dear Prudence is bouncing about in my head at the moment. Hurricane? What Hurricane? Earl completely ignored us and went to visit Rhode Island instead, apparently. All that fuss and bother over nothing. Even the governor got in on the act. I swear sometimes I think NY State government is a comedy act.

Pondering whether I really want to venture out to the subway, take a 45-50 minute ride to the upper West Side, and meet up with 200 and some strangers having a picnic in Central Park. Got a message from meetup groups inviting me out to Central Park to frolic - bring rollerblades, skateboard, bike, or just good walking shoes. But the prospect of a crowded day in Central Park is not exactly enticing. Particularly after the difficult week I've had - negotiating with difficult people both inside and outside my company- enough to give me a complex. May just venture to the promenade...then again maybe not, sort of want a people free day. OR as people free as one can get living in a city.

Spent most of last night reading Buffy reviews. There's about ten on my flist alone. Which begs the question? If I stopped talking about Buffy would I lose half my readers? I'm guessing not, since I don't talk about it that much anymore.

After reading the reviews? I honestly don't know if I want to continue reading the comic books or not. The consensus, assuming there is one, appears to be that the comics are entertaining and interesting if you want to take the time to analyze the frigging daylights out of them and engage in the Whedon's favorite guessing game: what is the story exactly? And what does it all mean? Sort of similar to the tv series Lost - which liked to play a similar game.( grousing about the difficulty of focusing on plot twists as your main story bit, and how the focus on plot twists can hurt good stories...it's a ramble )

The best reviews are by local_max, aycheb, beergoodfoamy and 2maggie2 - go read both of maggie's, then contrast and compare. The first one demonstrates why the comics aren't working for most people, the second demonstrates why they are working for a select bunch. Which is why I'm on the fence about them.


In other news, I just watched this week's Project Runway -( rant about project runway which I'm really hating this year...thisclose to dropping it from the DVR. )

And apparently Jane Espenson is writing the 4th season of Torchwood? (according to flist - all my entertainment news these days comes from flist) That woman gets around, she was the show-runner on Caprica (which may or may not return according to flist?), and Warehouse 13 (also according to flist.). Busy lady. Lucky lady. What I want to know is - is Torchwood going to be on BBC America still or is it on Starz (where I can't get it?)

Loving Storm of Swords - this book is suspenseful and exceedingly detailed in all the right places. A pleasant surprise. Have to admit - when I see 1500 page books, I blanch in fear and foreboding. Few writers can do lengthy epics well. Too often they get bogged down in extraneous details that few people care about and does not pertain to the story. Also this novel seems to be more character driven and less about battles than the last book was. I remember getting bogged down in Clash of Kings.

Finished watching the Torchwood miniseries last night. As stated in a prior post, this is possibly the best sci-fi miniseries or film that I've seen in quite some time. And yes, in some respects I enjoyed it more than both the recent Star Trek film and the finale of Battlestar Galatica. Considering the fact that I do not consider myself a Doctor Who or Torchwood fan, that I guess is saying something.

Just finished reading an article on the horror genre in EW this morning. There's a quote in the magazine by Susan Downey, the producer of the horror film The Orphan, which states:
Horror films tap into our the most primal fears, and when we put a woman through this mythological journey and have her come out at the end kicking ass, the guys get the eye candy they want and the girls get the sense of 'I can face my demon.'"

I think that in a nutshell may be why I am finding myself more and more drawn to the horror genre and less so to the romance genre. I like the fact that she comes out of it kicking ass. What struck me in this mini-series is the heroes of the series were the women, who continuously called the men on what they were doing. It's also the woman who took the lead.

Torchwood also tackled quite a few political themes, one of which I was not aware of until last night. And here, I will have to do a lj-cut to protect people from spoilers.

( Spoilers for Torchwood, also cut for length )

[Well, I've been playing with my toys, Facebook and MySpace. MySpace - you can apparently blog on just like you do here, but not really lock it as easily. While Facebook - you can post comments on and photos. I've no clue how you get an icon on MySpace, but Facebook is pretty easy. At any rate - I posted a movie review of The Lives of Others on MySpace. I joined it so I could read some of the professional writers blogs. Barack Obama has a site on both, apparently. These blogs are under my own name unlike this one which isn't. My name is too prevalent to use online. You google it and run into about 400 other people with the same one. Good luck figuring out which one is me.]

Torchwood - Season 2
( Torchwood Season 2 Review )

[Ugh, haven't accomplished much outside of grocery shopping, comic shopping (Whedon's X-men and a Wizard mag with a disappointing Whedon article, Dark Knight Returns article and a confusing article on Richard Donner's Superman II. Plus a bit on Stephen King's two sons who have managed to become successful writers. Never heard of them. But they are apparently out there and published:Joe Hill and Owen King. Only thing I like that King writes is his column for Entertainment Weekly, which come to think of it is the only thing I really like in that mag anymore.) Am feeling unmotivated and kicking self for it per usual - see icon - that's me fighting my social malaise, except I'm not a blond and not short. ].

Watching Torchwood now. Starting with Kiss Kiss Bang Bang again, because it's fun and happens to be on and nothing else I'm remotely in the mood for is. Well except for maybe, Day After Tomorrow - a horrendous yet oddly entertaining disaster flick starring a bored Dennis Quaid, who has aged remarkably well. ( cut for spoilers for the folks who still live under rocks and snark because if you can't be snarky in your own journal where can you? )

Last night, while reading a really crappy article about Juno in EW, I got to thinking about how women have been presented on film and tv. The lead in Juno and the writers of the article argue that we haven't had rebel women in film or books. We don't have the female version of "Holden Caulfield" - instead women are shown as a support system for men. Note Sarah Connor who is all about John Connor in Terminator. Or in Breakfast Club - the rebel Ally Sheedy who changes her style to get Emilio Estevez. All the Molly Ringwald films are about the girl getting a guy. Even Heathers - the lead goes bad because of the guy, JD who motivates her. OR they are freaks like the girls in Ghost World. Juno - they state breaks the mold, because she is a 16 year old teen who is pregnant, keeps the kid, and is blase about her sexuality, allows herself to have pleasure with sex and is about the conquest and the consequences, that men don't have to deal with. Then they congratulate the script-writer, a tough woman, who was a former stripper and phone sex operative. What is amusing about the article and annoying is ironically the writer and the character in Juno are still all about the man. They are his sex toy or he is their's. They have his kid. While in Catcher in The Rye - Holden Caulfield wasn't worrying about any women, besides his kid sis. Rebel without a Cause? Natalie Wood's character was a side-issue, completely supporting. In the male rebel films - the women aren't the point, they aren't the main issue, they are not his purpose.
It's not about the guy getting the girl - it's about the guy's journey and she just happens to be on the path. Yet in chick lit and chick flicks - it's about getting married, finding the guy, getting the guy with just a few exceptions.

Working Girl - Harrison Ford plays the hunk, but he's not the point. Melanie Gritthif's character's story is about winning the job and getting that promotion, making her own way.
He's just one of the perks.

Little Black Book - The heroine gives up the guy and goes for the career.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer - Buffy was about the girl saving the world. She did it her way not the guy's way. She was a rebel. Faith - another character in the show - a rebel - same deal.
Neither ended up with men, neither had kids. They didn't become a support system. They were rebels. It's only in fanfic written mainly by "female" fans that they make a man, be it Spike, Xander, Riley or Angel the center of the heroine's world - her point of being. And goal. In fanfic - Buffy is the supportive one, the guys rule. If they don't - she spends all her time saving them, protecting them, healing them. Focused on having kids. If she's not, she's being blasted by the writer and the characters for daring to put her career of being the slayer before them. For going down a path most women never dare to venture down. A path in our culture that is usually reserved for men. Willow - a character often abused in fanfic and hated by many female fans - was not interested in men at all. And power was earthly and magical. Brainy. Not brawn.

Xenia - was about a female warrior with a cute female side-kick. Male fantasy? Maybe. But women flocked to it as well in it's later seasons.

Firelfy - the hero in Firefly is ironically a girl, not the male gunfighter. She's smarter, brighter, and stronger than he - and it is a man who supports her. It's an odd twist. Firefly is an odd show because it shows many female stereotypes, yet also twists them, and there are a few rebels.

Veronica Mars - a snarky female detective who does not rely on anyone and puts her wits, career, and own ambitions before relationships. Who is not interested in getting married or having kids. And at the same time is fairly open about her sexuality and comfortable in it.
The guys support her not the other way around. All the while she snarks about phonies. If we need a female Holden Caulfield? This is our lady. Far more so than the others. Unlike Summer Glau's character in Firefly or SMG's Buffy or even Xenia and Willow - Veronica has no brawn, no superpowers - just her wits, her snark, and her own sense of self to keep her going.

BattleStar Galatica - Here we have the wonderful Starbuck. She smokes cigars. She is a fighter pilot. She gambles. She snarks. She's got the best lines. And she has sex with whomever she wants. Traditionally a male role played by sexy hunks such as Dirk Benedict and Harrison Ford, Katee Sackoff's take is as Holden as you get. Far more so than Juno. She's not clever just to be clever, she's tough, she has steel inside and she goes her own way. You don't see Starbuck supporting anyone. She's her own woman. Same with Roslyn - the prez - tough as nails.

Then there's Farscape - Aeryn Sun - who gives John Crichton a run for his money. She becomes wife and mother, but at the same time can clearly clean John's clock and fly a ship and if anything he supports her, or they support each other as equals.

These shows escape some of the patronistic tendencies we see in so many tv shows and films.
Doctor Who - sure has the female sidekick - but she's still little more than a sidekick, playing the Doctor's conscience. Often seen as a romantic interest for *him*. And often played as a sexy one. Same deal with Torchwood - although Gwen is not played as a sex symbol nor is Tosh - if anything Jack himself is the sex symbol in that show. In some respects, Torchwood is far less patronistic than Doctor Who, allowing a woman at times to run the show.
Gwen ran things when Jack was gone and did not do a bad job of it.

In books? Do we have female Holden's who not into just being the support for the guy or having kids or mothers? Sure we do. You just have to look for them. Kim Harrison's novels aren't bad. Unfortunately the historical ones, the classics, oddly written by women who spent their lives fighting for women's rights and unmarried/childless - are about finding the guy, getting married and having kids. Jane Austen & Louisa May Alcott both come to mind.

I don't know. Going to watch Sleeper now on Torchwood. It's taping too. But I'm in the mood to watch it now. May come back to edit this later. Then again, may not.

Not a bad day. Got a lot done. And saw The Bourne Ultimatitum, which I enjoyed more than I expected. Will you? Depends on what you like. It's a spy caper - about a black ops operative who has lost his memory and is trying to unravel who he is while being tracked down by the intelligence organization that turned him into what he is. Based on Robert Ludlum's best-selling series - the Bourne films closely follow the gist of the novels, but change a lot in the translation. The film contains some of the best chase sequences I've seen including one - that can best be described as a four-way chase sequence. We have a girl being chased by a bad guy, Bourne chasing the bad guy, and the police chasing Bourne. It's gripping, scarey, and suspenseful. Possibly the best chase sequence I've seen in a while. I'm usually bored by chase sequences - because most of them don't tell me anything new about the character or move the plot forward. This one did both.

It always annoys me when people say - that film was deeply stupid or deeply boring or dumb, (yes, I've done it too) - but don't state why. They don't get to the root of why they didn't like it. Making it impossible for someone who's never seen the film to know whether or not they'd like it or want to see it. Something that bores person A, might thrill person B after all.

An example - V for Vendetta - know of three women who really did not like this film. While numerous people online including myself found it not only memorable but haunting. The three who hated it never explained why they hated it. They just said it was dumb. They couldn't get into it. Found it silly. Stupid. Boring. I remember trying to talk to Wales about it and not getting anywhere. The ones who enjoyed it on the other hand? Explained why and made others want to see it.

Of course the reason for this may be that you don't always know. I tried Mad Men and Saving Grace recently - found both incredibly dull and ended up deleting them from DVR. The characters just didn't interest me. They were too self-involved. And the dialogue just did not pull me into the story. It was style over substance in my opinion. But mostly? I just couldn't get into them. Mad MEn? I couldn't hear most of the dialogue, we kept rewinding and finally gave up. But I Felt basically the same way about both shows. Yet, critics love both. And they are doing well - they are POPULAR. (Shrugs). Maybe I gave up too soon?? Or maybe it was my mood.

I wonder if it is harder to explain why you dislike something or don't enjoy it than it is why you love it? No. I think it's harder to explain ambivalence.

One quibble about the movie I just saw - a woman in the audience actually brought her child to it in a stroller. Oookay. The kid chortled, talked, squealed and laughed throughout. Luckily the film was loud enough to blot out most of it. I agree with Ken Levine who recently posted a great list of Movie Theater Don't's on his blog.

The two I remember - I'll repost here, because they bare repeating.

1. Children under the age of 6 should not be permitted in a movie theater unless Care Bears or a clearly age appropriate film is being shown. Children under the age of 10 should not be permitted into an R-rated, NC-rated, or PG-13 rated film regardless of whether or not parents are with them. Parents who bring their kids to these films need to be slapped.(That said, I think my parents accidently brought my brother and me to Excaliber when we were 10 and 13 respectively - but we were at least over the age of 10!) If you can't find a babysitter? Stay home. The audience does not deserve to suffer your screaming kids. Proof positive that having children does not make people less selfish. Also proof that some people should not have children.

2.Do not check your cell phone in a movie theater. Turn it off and leave it in your bag. If you are expecting an important call or are worried about your kids? Stay home or somewhere else. Netflix is a great way to watch movies! Turning it on is like turning on a flashlight. People who do this should be banned from going to movie theaters, they don't know how to behave.

Finally - I just read a really cool bit about John Barrowman from Torchwood that I want to share - it's from TV Guide interview with Benji Wilson, this week's issue:"I know a lot of gay leading men in Hollywood. I'm not one for outing people- they might have personal issues they need to overcome - but if they are not speaking up because they're afraid it's going to affect their careers, that pisses me off. Take the risk! I took that risk and the public rewarded me. I still play straight leading characters in theater, TV and film, so it doesn't matter." Very true. Anyone with half a brain knows the actor is acting and that whatever is shown on screen is not what the actor truly feels or desires. That's why they call it ACTING. Heck some of the best romantic chemistry onscreen is between two actors who despise one another and would rather kill one another than kiss. And some of the worste? Between married couples who adore each other.

He is openly gay and just married his partner - British architect Scott Grill last year.
Apparently he was turned down for the Will part in Will & Grace, - because producers felt he was "too straight". (Ugh - when will people stop stereotyping each other?? I repeat you can't tell who is gay, straight, bisexual, black, white, etc just by looking at them or watching them. I've known men who acted "the gay stereotype" who are "straight" and women who acted the "lesbian butch" stereotype who are "straight" - just as I've known men and women who act like the "straight stereotype" who are *very* gay. You can't tell unless they tell you. It's as silly as the old saying if you have just one earring in your left ear that means you are gay. Gimme a break.)