(no subject)
Aug. 26th, 2017 07:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Watching an old episode of The Great British Bake-Off as I write this. It's the season with Ruby, Kimberly, Francis, Glenn, Christine, and Becca. Kimberly states at one point that she must have issues with authority because she doesn't like to be told what to do and can't seem to follow a recipe without changing or fiddling with it. Completely identify, I am exactly the same way.
After this will go back to streaming Wynona Earp which is a Syfy series adapted from a comic book. The setup: When Wynona turns 27 she inherits her family's curse. Apparently her great great great great granddad, the original Wyatt Earp, killed 77 men. When his heir or the eldest Earp turns 27, the 77 men he killed return from hell, and his heir has to kill them all off. Only Wyatt's Winchester 77 aka Peacemaker can kill the demons. Wynona's sister Waverly has done a lot of research on this and insists on aiding her. Wynona would prefer to escape back to Greece. But alas, she can't.
Stuck in the town of Purgatory and cornered by US Marshal working for a covert government agency assigned to curtail the demon threat...she must fulfill her calling. Meanwhile, a mysterious man in old Western get-up has popped up, who happens to be Doc Holliday. Not a descendant but the original.
And not a demon. (I'm watching it because of Doc Holliday, who I have a life-long fascination with. And well, the reluctant tough as nails heroine Wynona...). The series casts the male roles better than the female ones...the women, with just one exception, are twenty-something white eye-candy model types, who look a bit alike. But I'm only two episodes in, so this may change. And I like the sister dynamic, also the actress playing Wynona, not to mention Doc Holliday, who is intriguing, both the actor and the character. Wynona doesn't seem to know who he is, and it's not clear whether he's on her side or against her. Also Waverly apparently had an imaginary friend when she was younger, named Bobo, who happens to be one of the revenants or demons.
2. My mother discovered what was causing the chronic UTIs. Apparently there was a kidney stone or stone about marble size in her bladder of all places, and it was rolling around and causing irritation and bacteria to colonize in the urinary tract. I mention this because I looked up UTI's and they mention literally every single cause imaginable EXCEPT that one. LOL! Very relieved, because it can be resolved.
3. Cool Glow-in-the-Dark Bug Puppet
4. Uhm okay, just what we need, another streaming channel/service, this one is called Passion Flix and until midnight August 31, you purchase a founding member subscription for just $100 - lasts for two years aka $4.75 a month, and steam romance flicks (B list romance flicks), and
C list television adaptations cast with pretty model actor wannabees. I watched the trailers, and it really does remind me of what the Lifetime Channel and Hallmark Channels once were, particularly at Christmas time. About 99% of the novels being adapted are contemporary romance novels, the 1% are YA paranormal romance novels. So, I'll pass. Although it was tempting for a nanosecond, because I'd read one of the books being adapted and was admittedly a tad curious. Also it would feature shows concentrating on romance, no violence, and happy endings. But I tend to prefer to read this to watching it, mainly because for some reason the story works better in my head than on the screen, partly because the characters are more interesting in my head than when they are portrayed by wannabee model actors.
I think there are too many streaming channels. I'm starting to lose track of them. I'm sticking with Amazon, HBO and Netflix for now, and flirting with CBS All Access (The Good Fight, Star Trek: Discovery) and Starz ( Black Sails, American Gods).
5. While I agree that we should critique Whedon's work, and I've certainly done it, I think this is going a bit overboard.
When Whedon’s ex-wife Kai Cole wrote about the breakdown of their marriage, dozens of think pieces were published examining his most recent works and the too common trend of famous male feminists revealing themselves as manipulative and insincere. Long running fansite Whedonesque shuttered and hundreds of fans saw their affection for his work die. For many, Cole’s letter came as a shock. But not for all of us.
We Told You will look at the decades of intersectional feminist critique, and just plain disbelieving anger, that has existed alongside the narrative of Joss Whedon, perfect male feminist. Essays will include close examinations of particular works and recurring trends (waifish, emotionally vulnerable heroines; misogynistic nerds as author avatars; the racist underpinnings of Firefly), as well as his legacy as a producer and celebrity male feminist.
Uhm...a word of advice? (Whether you want it or not). If you want to persuade people to see things from a different perspective, this is NOT the way to go about it. I agree with them and this turned me off. It comes across as self-righteous, sanctimonious, and self-congragulatory all at the same time. Not to mention insanely preachy. They are going to turn off people.
Why not just ask for submissions to a zine that explores decades of intersectional feminist critique and reactions to Whedon's body of work, without all the finger-pointing?
I think this is a problem we currently have online...there's a lot of finger-pointing, name-calling, and righteous rage. But not a lot of thought. It's rather easy to condemn and judge someone you don't know, never met, and never will. But it's not exactly constructive. Also there are ways of doing this in which you open channels of communication to the other side, and keep them open, and possibly persuade people to change behavior. It's actually easier to get people to change how they behave than to change their minds. I know you wouldn't think so, but it is. But the above is NOT the way to do it. They pissed me off, and I agree with a lot of what they said.
Ironically, this reminds me a lot of why I began to have serious issues with Joss Whedon, Aaron Sorkin, and David E. Kelly's writing...they jumped up on a soap box and got preachy. And began to "talk down" to their audience. David E. Kelly's Big Little Lies was very preachy, like all of his television series. Joss Whedon's latest efforts felt preachy to me as well, and unsettling. Both writers seem to have issues with women. Actually all three writers have issues with women. No wait, Hollywood has issues with women...no wait, who am I kidding? Our ENTIRE society on a global level has serious issues with gender. Both genders. No one is immune. I see it everywhere, all the frigging time.
Anyhow...entitling a zine ..."We Told You"...sort of is akin to thumbing your nose at fellow fans, and saying "nyah, nyah, nyah, I told you so! You nitwit!" First off, you are assuming people are agreeing with your take on this? What if they aren't? I mean I hate to tell you this, but not everyone is going to come to same conclusions. What may be obvious to one person won't be too another. (I mean hello, people voted for Donald Trump. And he's done far worse things than Whedon.)
Second, even if they suddenly agree, why in the hell would they want to read a zine that kicks them in the face with it?
It may, however, do well based on the curiousity factor. It sparked mine. Although their self-congragulatory and somewhat sanctimonious attitude turned me off.
After this will go back to streaming Wynona Earp which is a Syfy series adapted from a comic book. The setup: When Wynona turns 27 she inherits her family's curse. Apparently her great great great great granddad, the original Wyatt Earp, killed 77 men. When his heir or the eldest Earp turns 27, the 77 men he killed return from hell, and his heir has to kill them all off. Only Wyatt's Winchester 77 aka Peacemaker can kill the demons. Wynona's sister Waverly has done a lot of research on this and insists on aiding her. Wynona would prefer to escape back to Greece. But alas, she can't.
Stuck in the town of Purgatory and cornered by US Marshal working for a covert government agency assigned to curtail the demon threat...she must fulfill her calling. Meanwhile, a mysterious man in old Western get-up has popped up, who happens to be Doc Holliday. Not a descendant but the original.
And not a demon. (I'm watching it because of Doc Holliday, who I have a life-long fascination with. And well, the reluctant tough as nails heroine Wynona...). The series casts the male roles better than the female ones...the women, with just one exception, are twenty-something white eye-candy model types, who look a bit alike. But I'm only two episodes in, so this may change. And I like the sister dynamic, also the actress playing Wynona, not to mention Doc Holliday, who is intriguing, both the actor and the character. Wynona doesn't seem to know who he is, and it's not clear whether he's on her side or against her. Also Waverly apparently had an imaginary friend when she was younger, named Bobo, who happens to be one of the revenants or demons.
2. My mother discovered what was causing the chronic UTIs. Apparently there was a kidney stone or stone about marble size in her bladder of all places, and it was rolling around and causing irritation and bacteria to colonize in the urinary tract. I mention this because I looked up UTI's and they mention literally every single cause imaginable EXCEPT that one. LOL! Very relieved, because it can be resolved.
3. Cool Glow-in-the-Dark Bug Puppet
4. Uhm okay, just what we need, another streaming channel/service, this one is called Passion Flix and until midnight August 31, you purchase a founding member subscription for just $100 - lasts for two years aka $4.75 a month, and steam romance flicks (B list romance flicks), and
C list television adaptations cast with pretty model actor wannabees. I watched the trailers, and it really does remind me of what the Lifetime Channel and Hallmark Channels once were, particularly at Christmas time. About 99% of the novels being adapted are contemporary romance novels, the 1% are YA paranormal romance novels. So, I'll pass. Although it was tempting for a nanosecond, because I'd read one of the books being adapted and was admittedly a tad curious. Also it would feature shows concentrating on romance, no violence, and happy endings. But I tend to prefer to read this to watching it, mainly because for some reason the story works better in my head than on the screen, partly because the characters are more interesting in my head than when they are portrayed by wannabee model actors.
I think there are too many streaming channels. I'm starting to lose track of them. I'm sticking with Amazon, HBO and Netflix for now, and flirting with CBS All Access (The Good Fight, Star Trek: Discovery) and Starz ( Black Sails, American Gods).
5. While I agree that we should critique Whedon's work, and I've certainly done it, I think this is going a bit overboard.
When Whedon’s ex-wife Kai Cole wrote about the breakdown of their marriage, dozens of think pieces were published examining his most recent works and the too common trend of famous male feminists revealing themselves as manipulative and insincere. Long running fansite Whedonesque shuttered and hundreds of fans saw their affection for his work die. For many, Cole’s letter came as a shock. But not for all of us.
We Told You will look at the decades of intersectional feminist critique, and just plain disbelieving anger, that has existed alongside the narrative of Joss Whedon, perfect male feminist. Essays will include close examinations of particular works and recurring trends (waifish, emotionally vulnerable heroines; misogynistic nerds as author avatars; the racist underpinnings of Firefly), as well as his legacy as a producer and celebrity male feminist.
Uhm...a word of advice? (Whether you want it or not). If you want to persuade people to see things from a different perspective, this is NOT the way to go about it. I agree with them and this turned me off. It comes across as self-righteous, sanctimonious, and self-congragulatory all at the same time. Not to mention insanely preachy. They are going to turn off people.
Why not just ask for submissions to a zine that explores decades of intersectional feminist critique and reactions to Whedon's body of work, without all the finger-pointing?
I think this is a problem we currently have online...there's a lot of finger-pointing, name-calling, and righteous rage. But not a lot of thought. It's rather easy to condemn and judge someone you don't know, never met, and never will. But it's not exactly constructive. Also there are ways of doing this in which you open channels of communication to the other side, and keep them open, and possibly persuade people to change behavior. It's actually easier to get people to change how they behave than to change their minds. I know you wouldn't think so, but it is. But the above is NOT the way to do it. They pissed me off, and I agree with a lot of what they said.
Ironically, this reminds me a lot of why I began to have serious issues with Joss Whedon, Aaron Sorkin, and David E. Kelly's writing...they jumped up on a soap box and got preachy. And began to "talk down" to their audience. David E. Kelly's Big Little Lies was very preachy, like all of his television series. Joss Whedon's latest efforts felt preachy to me as well, and unsettling. Both writers seem to have issues with women. Actually all three writers have issues with women. No wait, Hollywood has issues with women...no wait, who am I kidding? Our ENTIRE society on a global level has serious issues with gender. Both genders. No one is immune. I see it everywhere, all the frigging time.
Anyhow...entitling a zine ..."We Told You"...sort of is akin to thumbing your nose at fellow fans, and saying "nyah, nyah, nyah, I told you so! You nitwit!" First off, you are assuming people are agreeing with your take on this? What if they aren't? I mean I hate to tell you this, but not everyone is going to come to same conclusions. What may be obvious to one person won't be too another. (I mean hello, people voted for Donald Trump. And he's done far worse things than Whedon.)
Second, even if they suddenly agree, why in the hell would they want to read a zine that kicks them in the face with it?
It may, however, do well based on the curiousity factor. It sparked mine. Although their self-congragulatory and somewhat sanctimonious attitude turned me off.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-27 03:06 am (UTC)I think you've said it fairly succinctly.
The whole business has an air of tragic comedy. We all remember the days when there were folks dancing around in circles, proclaiming Joss could do no wrong. Now, we have folks virtually saying he's Satan, no, worse than Satan.
It's fun to speculate. Did SMG suddenly quit socializing with the rest of the crew outside of work because they were buddies with Joss and she wanted to keep contact with him just on a business level? Was his insistence that he was still totally in charge at Buffy in season six because MN was his lady friend of the moment and he wanted to protect her from all the criticism? (Cause it sure seemed like he didn't have the faintest idea what was happening sometimes.) But our guesses are speculation and that's all.
People will go ahead and criticize for whatever reason they want. But I think criticizing Buffy the TV show at this late date because the guy behind it was a cad to his wife is a little silly.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-27 01:32 pm (UTC)Although I think some of the criticism is about introducing a sexual relationship to uneven power dynamics in the workplace. (ie. I don't think they'd be as critical if he just had a string of affairs. I think they are being critical because his wife is claiming the affairs were with people who were working under him at the time.)
Although, on television sets the working dynamic is a tad different than it is in most workplaces. For one thing, Whedon really doesn't have sole control and can't fire some people willy-nilly. For example, I think he would have had a really hard time firing SMG or Angel once they got popular or Marsters for that matter, once he got popular. Fox would have fired him and replaced him with another writer. (It's been done.) I think a lot of people have forgotten that a showrunner/screenwriter in Hollywood can easily be fired and replaced. They really don't have that much power. And Whedon did not own the rights to his properties. He gets almost no money from them.
And it wasn't Whedon who chose to fire CC, it was the network and studio that wanted her gone for whatever reason. Similar to Glenn Quinn, who the studio chose to get rid of. The actors contracts were negotiated and controlled at the studio level. ( A lot of fans don't appear to know this.)
Also, what a lot of people don't understand is that people work insane hours on television and film sets. They are literally spending 99% of their time with their co-workers. Often doing intense improvisational things, that are intimate, such as sex scenes, with partial or full nudity. Not to mention they are sleeping, eating, etc on the set, and often have 24 hour work days.
So, it's quite different than the boss screwing his secretary, or the head of a company screwing one of his employees, or say Roman Polanski raping a girl at a party. To equate them, the way people are doing, I'm not sure is fair.
I think you are correct, he was just a cad to his wife. And you're right, so much of this is just speculation. All we have is a blog post. And people can basically blog or say anything on the internet, doesn't make it true. That's the problem with the technological age -- it's easier to spread gossip, innuendo, fake news, and misinformation than ever before. We shouldn't take what people write on blogs, journals, social media sites or zines too seriously. 98% of it is just opinion and speculation.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-28 08:12 am (UTC)Well, you beat me to it, since this is exactly the same point I was going to make when I finally got around to commenting on this current controversy.
I agree with cactuswatcher, this is pretty much about Whedon and his relationship to his wife. While it's certainly possible, I personally would be surprised if there was any coercive behavior involved between Whedon and any of the women on the cast or crew. I'm watching this to the extent that I want to see if any of said cast or crew comes out with a report of such happening.
You're absolutely right, the general public really seems to have little clue as to how the TV or film industry operates, and the heavy demands it often places on the acting and production people. Those demands make for ripe situations for emotional bonds forming between people, and people-- not just men-- are subject to questionable behavior when that occurs.
A "perfect" feminist? No such thing, even among women, for that matter. I do believe Whedon genuinely both admires and respects the gender, but he's still a heterosexual male, and being one myself, I never pretend that I don't have lustful feelings towards many women I meet, it's just that I don't act on them unwisely.
If I had been in his position? I'd like to think I'd behave better, but...
no subject
Date: 2017-08-28 12:23 pm (UTC)And...well, it's not like this behavior is limited to female actresses or heterosexuals. (James Dean apparently was on the receiving end of far worse...)
A "perfect" feminist? No such thing, even among women, for that matter. I do believe Whedon genuinely both admires and respects the gender, but he's still a heterosexual male, and being one myself, I never pretend that I don't have lustful feelings towards many women I meet, it's just that I don't act on them unwisely.
Exactly. No one is perfect and there's no such thing as a perfect feminist. I've not met any, male or female. And I've seen misogynistic and sexist behavior from women as well as men, both online and off.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-28 05:08 pm (UTC)I'm watching this to the extent that I want to see if any of said cast or crew comes out with a report of such happening.
I'd be surprised if any of them did. Hollywood is a small town and it's a real good way to kill a career and burn bridges. Unless they can gain something from it, don't see it happening.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-27 11:57 pm (UTC)Huh, thanks for mentioning that. Not that I've been having any problems but especially if there are unusual causes for things it's good to know about them just in case because you can be sure your doctor won't spend time trying to find out...
Haha, I had exactly the same reaction to the PassionFlix announcement. In fact I have a blurb about it drafted in my next post so I won't bother repeating it here.
Why not just ask for submissions to a zine that explores decades of intersectional feminist critique and reactions to Whedon's body of work, without all the finger-pointing?
Because why would anyone talk about it if not for its connection to the outrage du jour?
It's pretty tiresome because while on the one hand I think it's a good thing to be exposing both hypocrisy and criminally bad behavior (of which I've yet to see Whedon accused of) on the personal level as well as unequal treatment on the corporate one, the fact is that there is no end of such news, nor the number of public figures who may be engaging in it. Especially from a site like the Mary Sue it seems to me they've been engaging in overkill for the past few years in an increasing number of stories on this front. I find the recurring post about anti-choice efforts to be useful for those who want it and easy to skip for those who don't. It would be nice if they simply had a single weekly post collecting each such latest public outing instead of devoting multiple stories to the same topic every time there is an additional tidbit of news.
no subject
Date: 2017-08-28 12:49 pm (UTC)Yeah, I told my mom that I'd looked UTI up on the internet, and it gave every possible cause but that one. She asked if some of the causes I found on the net scared me. (Oh yeah!)
It's pretty tiresome because while on the one hand I think it's a good thing to be exposing both hypocrisy and criminally bad behavior (of which I've yet to see Whedon accused of) on the personal level as well as unequal treatment on the corporate one, the fact is that there is no end of such news, nor the number of public figures who may be engaging in it..
Exactly.
I agree with everything you stated above. Although the latest link, to be fair, hadn't originated from the Mary Sue, but from another person's post on DW. I think the fandom has overreacted or used the information to validate their oh-so-righteous rage and dislike of a specific writer. When it doesn't really...because the information provided is rather scant and open to interpretation.