(no subject)
Jul. 25th, 2017 09:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2017-07-26 03:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-07-26 12:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-07-26 12:31 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2017-07-26 12:10 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2017-07-26 02:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-07-26 05:08 pm (UTC)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.