(no subject)

[shadowkat]

1. Apparently Stephen Moffat doesn't think there was any negative fan backlash regarding the announcement of the New Doctor Who, and everyone was happy with the idea.

LMAO. This made me laugh for fifteen minutes. If you want to know why, eh, go find the numerous posts in which I discussed said backlash.

It's interesting, on a side note, I'm reading Americanha and in that novel, the female protagonist describes her mother as an individual who refuses to see the world as it is, only as she wishes it to be. This article reminded me a bit of that.

There is of course something to be said for doing that...to focus on the positive and ignore all negativity. Unfortunately my brain isn't wired that way.


2. Daniel Craig is stuck playing James Bond for a fifth time, after saying he'd rather die than play the role because the character is so misogynistic

He's not wrong.

The books actually aren't misogynistic. I read the books. They aren't like the movies at all. Nor is the character anything like the movies. There's less gadgetry for one thing. The only film that reminded of the books was Doctor No and Casino Royale. Everything else, nope, not like the books.

The movies however...have become increasingly misogynistic and unsettling. (Having seen all them, except for Spectra, I can say that with some credibility. I don't believe in critiquing things I have not read or seen. Or tried to read or watch.) That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the films. Yes, I've enjoyed insanely misogynistic and sexist fare in my lifetime. (Points at Westerns and Noir films and books). I have a tendency to ignore it, also I like strong male leads in things. But, I'm also critical of them. And I tend to see them as representative of certain aspects of our culture...

That said? After 25 Bond films...and counting...

Time to cast a female Bond.

Just saying.


3. Midnight Texas -- it's not True Blood. It's sort of like a weak, third rate cousin to True Blood. Co-worker liked it. And it's likable I guess...just, I'm used to better fare. This feels like a B horror movie.

It's about this hipster guy (beard, twenty-something, skinny, fluffy hair) who is a psychic. Most of it is fake, except of course for his ability to commune with the dead. And the ghosts appear as beaten up corpses. They are fussy, nasty, and attempt to possess him. Anyhow, since he apparently owes money to someone nasty, he flees Dallas for Midnight, Texas. His dead grandma told him he'd be safe there.

Midnight, Texas is inhabited by supernatural freaks. There's an energy vampire (the most interesting character in the series), a witch, a talking tabby cat (which I found sort of funky), a female assassin who has an interesting co-dependent relationship with the energy vampire, a seemingly normal waitress with an over protective Daddy, and ...a pawn shop owner, who appears to have a few secrets of his own.

Unlike True Blood, the writing is no better than the books, which is not a good thing. The dialogue sort of falls flat. And the acting is rather awkward and stiff, making me wonder about the direction.

It just doesn't have the production value that True Blood did or for that matter Supernatural and Vampire Diaries. Heck, Buffy's production value was better.

I may continue watching it to see if it gets better. But I can't help but wonder what my co-worker was smoking.

Then again, I may be overly picky. I've been watching better fare lately.

Comments

[cactuswatcher]

because the character is so misogynistic
Well, that early 1950s attitude is kind of built into that character, just like it was in crime genre books of that era. I don't think the solution is a female Bond, just the world moving past Bond all together.

Midnight, Texas: I guess from what you say, Charlaine Harris is no Shakespeare.

I just found the whole Midnight pilot very amateurish. If it wasn't a cash grab I don't understand why NBC bought it. The lead guy made me think of Buffy's Oz and not in a good way. It could get better, but I don't expect it to last long enough to improve much. They got a good audience last night, but I don't expect most people to come back for more.

[shadowkat]

Well, that early 1950s attitude is kind of built into that character, just like it was in crime genre books of that era. I don't think the solution is a female Bond, just the world moving past Bond all together.

True. I suspect the reason I found the books less so, is I was aware it was the 1950s/1960s take on it. And well, the one I read, actually was --- The Spy Who Loved Me.

But I agree. The character is a throwback to a bygone age. As is the series. It doesn't quite work in the 21st Century.

I guess from what you say, Charlaine Harris is no Shakespeare.

Or Joss Whedon for that matter.

I just found the whole Midnight pilot very amateurish. If it wasn't a cash grab I don't understand why NBC bought it. The lead guy made me think of Buffy's Oz and not in a good way. It could get better, but I don't expect it to last long enough to improve much. They got a good audience last night, but I don't expect most people to come back for more.

That was my take on it as well. The lead character reminded me of OZ, except they forgot to cast Seth Green, not that he could have helped much.

They pulled in audience for the curiousity factor, and it's summer...there's not a lot on at the moment, unless you subscribe to the premium channels.

Still Star Crossed is better, albeit not by much, and its struggling for an audience.

[rahirah]

Someone did research the percent of positive to negative reactions on social media to Whittaker's casting within the first forty-eight hours or something, and it was about 80% positive. So it's more that the minority who don't like it are being VERY loud about it, than that the overall reaction was negative. But saying there was no negative reaction at all is definitely not accurate.

[jesuswasbatman]

Especially since probably the biggest and most famous BNF who never became a TV writer or actor had a hilarious meltdown on twitter about it, but almost everyone else hates him now anyway for being such a massive wanker (in both the Fandom Wank sense and the normal British English sense).

[shadowkat]

I wasn't aware of that one...although, admittedly not in the DW fandom. But the fact that I was aware of the negative backlash and am not knee deep in the fandom or a writer for the series....again...Moffat's reaction is just hilariously absurd.

[shadowkat]

Yes, that's what I found to be so funny...the comment that there was no "negative" reaction whatsoever. Not that the negative reaction wasn't sexist. Not that was and is minimal. But that it didn't exist. LMAO.

[rahirah]

The silliest part is that there is always some amount of negative backlash. No matter who they pick, it will always piss someone off. Tennant was too pretty, Smith too young, Capaldi too old -- and that's not even counting the people who were disappointed because they wanted a non-white or non-male Doctor ages ago.

[shadowkat]

Exactly. People don't like change. I remember people being upset when Tennant took over from Eccleston. And apparently there was a bit of a backlash when Davisson took over from Colin Baker.

It's also changes in writers...the RT Davies fans did not like Moffat. So you get factions...team RT Davis vs. team Moffat. Now, we have people who are upset about Chinball taking over from Moffat.

They can't win. 80% approval is actually really good.

[ex_peasant441]

The books actually aren't misogynistic. I read the books. They aren't like the movies at all. Nor is the character anything like the movies. There's less gadgetry for one thing.

That is an interesting take. It is a long time since I read the books but my memory is that while I agree they are very different I found them more misogynistic, not less. In the movies the misogyny is more of the humorous kind, which I find easier to brush off. In the books it feels far more structural to me, far deeper and more ingrained.

an individual who refuses to see the world as it is, only as she wishes it to be. This article reminded me a bit of that.

There is of course something to be said for doing that...to focus on the positive and ignore all negativity. Unfortunately my brain isn't wired that way.

If that isn't the explanation for Moffatt's behaviour he needs to explain himself. It was entirely predictable there would be a backlash, if they didn't plan for that and allow for it and have thought about ways to deal with it when they write the new season, they are heading for a disaster. I know he isn't going to be writing the new season, but he is the one who has been responsible for laying the ground work for it. If he arrogantly thinks he has done such a good job the backlash has been prevented then he is a berk.

[shadowkat]

Well, I admittedly read the books in high school, over thirty years ago, so it's more than possible that my memory glossed over those bits? The one I remember is the Spy Who Loved Me, where the point of view is the woman's, and she's in a house with Bond, fighting off someone who is trying to kill them. It reminded me a little of Eye of the Needle by Ken Follet. Although Follet's book was better.

The only other one I read or remember is Live and Let Die, which felt a bit less misogynistic than the movies. Although far more gruesome, Felix, the American agent is fed to an alligator.

And, I read them aware of the context of the time period. I read them in the 1980s, they were obviously published and written in the 1950s and 1960s -- and bought then as well, since my Dad's worn paperbacks.

[ex_peasant441]

Felix's death is very brutal, it's one of the main things I remember. That and the torture scene in Casino Royale. The latest version of CR was remarkable in that it actually showed Bond taking ages to recover from that torture, which none of the earlier movies would have dreamt of doing. That was one of the things that reset the series into it's new darker style.

I also read the books a long time ago and I haven't seen any of the older Bonds for years, so I can't actually remember a single specific example of misogyny in either films or books, so it is hard for me to carry on this conversation.

I read them in the 1980s, they were obviously published and written in the 1950s and 1960s -- and bought then as well, since my Dad's worn paperbacks.

Much the same here. Paperbacks so old the paper was that peculiar orange pink colour and each page pretty much crumbled away as you read it.

There are often calls for Bond to be remade with a 50s/60s setting, to get back to the original books, but it won't happen of course until they are out of copyright. Meanwhile, knowing the Bond of the books is like knowing the original Tarzan books - it's like belonging to a secret club.

[shadowkat]

And it's important, as cactuswatcher notes above, to take those books in the context in which they were written. The original Tarzan books were rather racist. (My mother remembers them and noted this. I admittedly haven't read them, okay, not true. I did read one, in junior high, which I found in my grandmother's attic. But have almost no memory of it.)

[ex_peasant441]

Yes, almost any book has to be taken in context. I dislike judging the past, even the recent past, by current standards because those standards have changed so much in my own lifetime it seems completely ridiculous to judge anything older.

I read the Tarzan books, or at least some of them, at school because my English teacher was very keen we actually read them rather than just watch the American cartoon version (remember that?) or the old films. I honestly can't remember anything at all about them except for the cover art, but I carry with me the knowledge that both cartoon and films were 'doing it wrong'. Much like Bond. And Sherlock Holmes before the Jeremy Brett versions. And almost any other film or television adaptation :D

[shadowkat]

Do you mean the Disney Cartoon version of the books?

I had no memory of the books, but I also read it in the 1980s or 1970s. ;-)

[ex_peasant441]

There was a Tarzan cartoon series long before the Disney film. It seemed to be on all the time and was one of the ones that was roundly condemned as American Rubbish by people who liked to tell children what they should be watching and reading. They seldom allowed for the fact there was so little kid's TV in the seventies and eighties, and no means of recording, so we didn't have a huge choice. There was a very irritating monkey, if memory serves, but as usual I can't remember much else.

[shadowkat]

Okay, I managed to miss this Tarzan cartoon completely. I don't remember it at all. But it's worth keeping in mind that we had over 500 children's television series and cartoons.

Here's the 1960s List of Children's Television Shows: http://www.listal.com/list/1960s-childrens-tv

Here's the 1970s List of Children's Shows

Here' the 1980s list of Children's Television Shows

The US was different than Britain in the 60s, 70s and 80s in regards to Children's Television. Congress had passed "The Children's Television Act" which required that each network provide a certain number of hours of children's television per day. Also, we had Public Broadcasting System that was charged under the act to provide Children's Programming, particularly since it was partially funded with federal tax dollars.

Of course how the networks interrupted children's programming varied. We had a lot of cartoons. Saturday Morning cartoons, the ABC Afterschool Special, Sesame Street, Electric Company, Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, Captain Kangeroo, and another show I can't remember the name of.

Some British imports such as Marty and Monty Kroft's HnR Puffn' Stuff, starring a young Jack Wild, before he starred in Oliver. At least I think it was British. And Kimba by the Japanese animator, later remade by Disney into The Lion King.

Looney Tunes, Scooby Doo, there were so many. The Monkeeys.

I remember visiting France and Britain in the 1980s and being surprised at how little television you had, and the limited number of movie theaters. Also movies seemed to take a while to get to certain locals. And there were about twenty minutes of commercials before each movie. Back then, the US had no commercials before movies.

It blew my mind. I'd expected Britain to be more advanced, but actually they were about five to ten years behind the States regarding media output.

[ex_peasant441]

I remember visiting France and Britain in the 1980s and being surprised at how little television you had, and the limited number of movie theaters. Also movies seemed to take a while to get to certain locals. And there were about twenty minutes of commercials before each movie. Back then, the US had no commercials before movies.

Britain in the 70s and most of the 80s was very run down, both economically and culturally. It wasn't really until the 90s that the Thatcher reforms started to make a big enough difference to really count as a recovery. Looking back, we were a completely different country then.

Marty and Monty Kroft's HnR Puffn' Stuff, starring a young Jack Wild, before he starred in Oliver. At least I think it was British

I have never heard of this, although if it had Jack Wild it probably was British. Something about your description does sound slightly familiar, but no more than that.

[yourlibrarian]

Your comment about a female Bond made me think of the advertising I saw for Atomic Blonde which dubbed said something to the effect that the female Bond is here. That would be welcome since they dialed back the female roles in Bond with Judy Dench exiting and Moneypenny retiring from field work. I thought she'd been a great M.

[shadowkat]

That's actually where I got the idea from. I'm curious about Atomic Blond, but may wait to watch "On Demand" or on Amazon Prime.

Agreed, I rather liked Dame Judith Dench as M, and Moneypenny in the field. Casino Royal, Skyfall, and Quantum...didn't feel that misogynistic to me. It varies.

[yourlibrarian]

My memory of Casino Royale is dim. I'm fairly sure I watched it but don't remember much about it. Quantum I remember a little and recall thinking that it seemed less cartoonish than earlier Bonds in that the plot revolved around real world problems. But Skyfall seemed the big breakthrough to me, and I daresay, to fandom as it really broke the mold for Bond films. I was disappointed that the next film, whose title I don't even recall, didn't follow suit.

[shadowkat]

Haven't seen the latest film. Casino Royal - blew me away, because it was a huge change in the how they portrayed Bond. It was a throwback to Doctor No, in some respects, but also the most similar to the books. Few if any gadgets, and more of a focus on resolving the problem. More the nourish pot boiler spy flick, and very bare bones. (Also it had a hot shower sequence if you are into that sort of thing. ;-) )

I own that one. So have seen it more than once. Memories of the others are more vague. Quantum of Solace...wasn't that good and I can't remember it at all. Skyfall was very good, but provided a back story for both M and Bond that ...was off-book and re-booted the series completely. It's been rebooted a couple of times. The James Bond film series is similar in that regard to Doctor Who. They change the actor portraying the role and directors/writing team and the whole thing changes.

Connery and Craig's versions were closer to the books.

Dalton and Lazernby were not memorable at all...and sort of stood outside the whole thing.

Moore and Bronsan were less serious takes and more modern, less like the books.

[cjlasky7]

A general question (open to anyone):

I've never read Fleming. What makes the novels good reading, and how could those qualities be transferred/updated to a 21st century milieu?

[shadowkat]

The novels are sort of pot-boiler noirish spy thrillers. Think a poor man's John Le Carre. Fleming was a spy during WWII and in the 1930s and wrote a bunch of pulpy spy thrillers. Minimalistic in style, dark, and gritty. Not long, about 150-250 pages at most.

If you ever saw Connery's Doctor No or Craig's Casino Royale? They are similar to the books.

Can they be updated to the modern era? In a way they sort of have with Atomic Blonde and BladeRunner. I've seen versions of it or attempts here and there. And the macho sexism is no worse than what you'll find between the pages of Hemingway or Cormac McCarthy.

Are they worth reading? Eh, that's hard to say. Is anything really? My grandmother smacked my Dad upside the head for reading them as a kid. But he loved them and they made it into our house...so I was able to read them. My Dad also read Dickens, Treasure Island, Kidnapped, and Hemingway as a kid. He doesn't read them now, though, reads John Le Carre. And would say they are very dated. They don't have quite the same intricacy as Le Carre or Graham Green, more along the lines of Robert Ludlum, but not as long and tighter in plot. Fleming was a minimalist similar to Hemingway.

I enjoyed them as a teen. But I like noirish spy thrillers. Also loved Robert Ludlum and Ken Follet. Fleming fits in somewhere between Ludlum and Follet. Would I love them now? Eh, probably not. And they are dated, from a bygone era.