![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. As I transcribe what I've written in long-hand into my lap-top, I seem to alter it. Also Camp Nanowrimo contacted me. I've no idea what it is. No time -- full time job. Also don't really need writing prompts or a camp or retreat to write -- I tend to write better without these things for some weird reason. My muse bugs me when I'm busy, so I write on the subway, on the train, and at home each night, and on weekends, and at lunch breaks. Emailing my writing back and forth and carrying around three ring notebooks. I went through two notebooks. One fell apart on me. And five pens.
But if I do a Nanowrimo or something like that? My muse takes a vacation and runs for the hills. It does not like to be told what to do or put on an agenda. It, much like myself, marches to its own little drummer.
Writing for me at least, continues to be a solitary activity, no matter what I attempt to do to change that.
2. All caught up on The Resident now, and yeah, in some respects it falls into cliche, in others not so much. The ways it doesn't? The attending doctors/mentors are actually villains, complicated villains, but villains in the tale.
I don't know if I'm going to make it through it though...a little worried about Emily Vancamp's character, Nik Nieves, who I think Doctor Lane is setting up to take the fall for her dirty deeds.
Saw that coming from a mile away. They are doing it to motivate the protagonist, Conrad Hawkings, into doing something -- or jumping outside of his comfort zone. Conrad's mentor was Doctor Lane.
And he hates his father, and can't commit. But loves Nik dearly, and already went head to head with another doctor, Bell, to save another love of his life.
The cast is excellent in this by the way -- it saves the writing. I love Greenwood and Melinda Karakades in the roles of the complicated villains. They are interesting. And the rest of the cast from Matt on down is fantastic.
Casting really is 85% of it in television shows.
As much as I loved the original Roseanne at times, mainly due to the fact it had some amazing writers,[ETA: I stopped because I despise Roseanne.] I've decided not to watch the reboot. [ETA: because I despise Roseanne, which I mentioned in a previous post. As to why I despise Roseanne? She's basically the child of Archie Bunker and Donald Trump. But I'm not going to tell anyone what to watch. Plus it wouldn't do any good anyway. So if you are boycotting the show because you think this will make the world a better place? Go after the advertisers not the television show. No one cares if we don't watch it, we aren't being counted. There's this nifty thing called 'Neilsen' and they only count the people 'Neilsen' tabulates, so unless Neilsen has contacted you personally to tabulate your viewing habits, whether or not you watch the series is...irrelevant. Sorry to break it to you. That's why the Parkland high school students told everyone to boycott the advertisers of Laura Instagram's series, not the show itself, the advertisers -- who are the one's paying for it. They knew boycotting Laura Instagram herself would be pointless. That's how television works over here.]
Now, regardless of how I feel about Roseanne, I still wouldn't watch. Even if they replaced her. I don't watch Will and Grace. I honestly don't see the point of reboots. We have enough television shows already, why would I bother with an old television series? I've 54 hours of new ones, not including the stuff on Netflix to get through. Also, not feeling all that nostalgic. And if I wanted a reboot, it would be of anthology series like Alfred Hitchock Presents or Playhouse 90, or Studio 61, the one's that did plays such as The Days of Wine and Roses, etc. Go back further, past the 1970s to the dawn of television, with the 1960s and 50s anthology series. Do something different.
I do not need a reboot of 1980s and 1990s television shows. Seriously.
They weren't that good. And the ones that were, were good due to their time period and context.
3. So, tried Unsolved - the murders of Tupak and The Notorious B.I.G and am on the fence. I actually like this type of police procedural, which swings more towards realism and the bureaucratic nightmares of police work. What a lot of folks don't know is how frigging hard solving crimes is in our society. It's not like the murder paints you a neat little trail to their house. Also DNA evidence sort of on the fragile side. It rarely survives the crime. Fingerprints? Hard to get off most surfaces. And it is really hard to get DNA evidence from people without their consent, and if you do, it's fruit of the poisonous tree and thrown out.
So far, only a scant few of television procedural dramas have gotten it right. The first season of Broadchurch, Prime Suspect, The Wire, Hill Street Blues, The Closer, and first season of True Detective, also Fargo. All the other ones make me crazy.
Unsolved? So far it's doing it right as well. Showing the bureaucratic nightmare attached to police work. How everything you do is sort of blocked by various people. It's an obstacle course. A highly frustrating one. Not surprising to me at all that niether Tupack nor the Notorious B.I.G cases were solved. The television drama is an apt critique of our gun-loving society. Both most likely would be alive if Americans weren't in love with guns.
The end montage of the first episode has Tupak and Notorious B.I.G playing with fake machine guns in their back yard around a sprinkler, shooting at each other. Watching that -- I thought, well no wonder they are dead.
4. Beautiful day today. I'm watching the red maple outside my window slowly bloom. I love that tree. I love trees. I live in a city that also loves trees. If you take out twenty trees in NYC, you have to plant fifty trees. LOL! It blew my mind when I saw the change order for it. The things you find out working for a government agency.
The sky is this crystal blue. With barely a cloud in it. I guess the reason I believe in a higher being is I see the higher being as the world outside and inside of me. The sun, the moon, the sky, the trees, the dogs, the birds, everything. The way I see the world is unique to me, I've tried to explain it to others and never quite get anywhere. So, alas, have given up. How you choose to see the world and what you believe in is up to you. You will believe in something, just try to make it something that provides love and happiness and kindness not the opposite.
5. Reading slump continues. But it may just be that I'm tired of looking at words? And numbers for that matter. Would rather look at words than numbers. I work in a financial field but don't think that way. Shhh...I'm hoping no one will figure it out.
But if I do a Nanowrimo or something like that? My muse takes a vacation and runs for the hills. It does not like to be told what to do or put on an agenda. It, much like myself, marches to its own little drummer.
Writing for me at least, continues to be a solitary activity, no matter what I attempt to do to change that.
2. All caught up on The Resident now, and yeah, in some respects it falls into cliche, in others not so much. The ways it doesn't? The attending doctors/mentors are actually villains, complicated villains, but villains in the tale.
I don't know if I'm going to make it through it though...a little worried about Emily Vancamp's character, Nik Nieves, who I think Doctor Lane is setting up to take the fall for her dirty deeds.
Saw that coming from a mile away. They are doing it to motivate the protagonist, Conrad Hawkings, into doing something -- or jumping outside of his comfort zone. Conrad's mentor was Doctor Lane.
And he hates his father, and can't commit. But loves Nik dearly, and already went head to head with another doctor, Bell, to save another love of his life.
The cast is excellent in this by the way -- it saves the writing. I love Greenwood and Melinda Karakades in the roles of the complicated villains. They are interesting. And the rest of the cast from Matt on down is fantastic.
Casting really is 85% of it in television shows.
As much as I loved the original Roseanne at times, mainly due to the fact it had some amazing writers,[ETA: I stopped because I despise Roseanne.] I've decided not to watch the reboot. [ETA: because I despise Roseanne, which I mentioned in a previous post. As to why I despise Roseanne? She's basically the child of Archie Bunker and Donald Trump. But I'm not going to tell anyone what to watch. Plus it wouldn't do any good anyway. So if you are boycotting the show because you think this will make the world a better place? Go after the advertisers not the television show. No one cares if we don't watch it, we aren't being counted. There's this nifty thing called 'Neilsen' and they only count the people 'Neilsen' tabulates, so unless Neilsen has contacted you personally to tabulate your viewing habits, whether or not you watch the series is...irrelevant. Sorry to break it to you. That's why the Parkland high school students told everyone to boycott the advertisers of Laura Instagram's series, not the show itself, the advertisers -- who are the one's paying for it. They knew boycotting Laura Instagram herself would be pointless. That's how television works over here.]
Now, regardless of how I feel about Roseanne, I still wouldn't watch. Even if they replaced her. I don't watch Will and Grace. I honestly don't see the point of reboots. We have enough television shows already, why would I bother with an old television series? I've 54 hours of new ones, not including the stuff on Netflix to get through. Also, not feeling all that nostalgic. And if I wanted a reboot, it would be of anthology series like Alfred Hitchock Presents or Playhouse 90, or Studio 61, the one's that did plays such as The Days of Wine and Roses, etc. Go back further, past the 1970s to the dawn of television, with the 1960s and 50s anthology series. Do something different.
I do not need a reboot of 1980s and 1990s television shows. Seriously.
They weren't that good. And the ones that were, were good due to their time period and context.
3. So, tried Unsolved - the murders of Tupak and The Notorious B.I.G and am on the fence. I actually like this type of police procedural, which swings more towards realism and the bureaucratic nightmares of police work. What a lot of folks don't know is how frigging hard solving crimes is in our society. It's not like the murder paints you a neat little trail to their house. Also DNA evidence sort of on the fragile side. It rarely survives the crime. Fingerprints? Hard to get off most surfaces. And it is really hard to get DNA evidence from people without their consent, and if you do, it's fruit of the poisonous tree and thrown out.
So far, only a scant few of television procedural dramas have gotten it right. The first season of Broadchurch, Prime Suspect, The Wire, Hill Street Blues, The Closer, and first season of True Detective, also Fargo. All the other ones make me crazy.
Unsolved? So far it's doing it right as well. Showing the bureaucratic nightmare attached to police work. How everything you do is sort of blocked by various people. It's an obstacle course. A highly frustrating one. Not surprising to me at all that niether Tupack nor the Notorious B.I.G cases were solved. The television drama is an apt critique of our gun-loving society. Both most likely would be alive if Americans weren't in love with guns.
The end montage of the first episode has Tupak and Notorious B.I.G playing with fake machine guns in their back yard around a sprinkler, shooting at each other. Watching that -- I thought, well no wonder they are dead.
4. Beautiful day today. I'm watching the red maple outside my window slowly bloom. I love that tree. I love trees. I live in a city that also loves trees. If you take out twenty trees in NYC, you have to plant fifty trees. LOL! It blew my mind when I saw the change order for it. The things you find out working for a government agency.
The sky is this crystal blue. With barely a cloud in it. I guess the reason I believe in a higher being is I see the higher being as the world outside and inside of me. The sun, the moon, the sky, the trees, the dogs, the birds, everything. The way I see the world is unique to me, I've tried to explain it to others and never quite get anywhere. So, alas, have given up. How you choose to see the world and what you believe in is up to you. You will believe in something, just try to make it something that provides love and happiness and kindness not the opposite.
5. Reading slump continues. But it may just be that I'm tired of looking at words? And numbers for that matter. Would rather look at words than numbers. I work in a financial field but don't think that way. Shhh...I'm hoping no one will figure it out.
no subject
Date: 2018-04-01 12:13 am (UTC)Yeah, I can't think of any show that I want a reboot of at this point. I know Firefly is one of those but I strongly suspect 5 seasons of it would have left it with a very different fandom. The talk of a Buffy revival also leaves me feeling DNW. I still find it a special show, and the fact that people new to it are still becoming huge fans testifies to its lasting quality. But this is a very different setting for it -- it would be interesting to see the characters at this point in time, but not a reboot set in 2019. Although you never know -- I liked the original BSG fine but the rebooted one was amazing. Its prequel Caprica, however, was poorly paced in comparison and I found it a slog.
no subject
Date: 2018-04-01 01:24 am (UTC)Agreed on the reboots. I'm not sure how they could improve on Buffy, it was unlike BSG -- specific to the writers/actors/collaborators of its time. If they rebooted it, it would be entirely different. Firefly -- was going to go quite dark, and ahem, a tad on the skeevy side, some of the later scripts which leaked out got a bit of a mixed fan response. I think you are right, it would have had a different fandom. Although I think of all the series cancelled before its time -- it should have gotten a second chance.
I was thinking about who to cast in a Buffy reboot recently, and got stuck. I could come up with people to play Angel(Tom Ellis or Ian Somerhandler), Spike (the guy who played Constantine in the television serial or the guy who played the lead vampire in the Originals), Buffy (Betty from Riverdale), and Cordy (Veronica from Riverdale), but drew a blank on everyone else. I just don't think it would work and if it did, it would have an entirely different fandom.
no subject
Date: 2018-04-01 10:25 am (UTC)Well, that's a different take. Most people who don't watch the Roseanne reboot boycott it because she's a raging bigot.
no subject
Date: 2018-04-01 08:46 pm (UTC)Anyhow, I decided to clarify the post, because people have a nasty habit of jumping to conclusions on the internet without requesting clarification.
As previously stated in a prior post, I chose to delete from DVR and not watch because I despise Roseanne. That said? Even if Roseanne wasn't in the series, I would not watch it, because I don't like reboots.
Boycotting this show and telling people not to watch because the actress is a raging bigot is a waste of time. No one in the US cares if you or I watch this show. Unless we have been contacted by the Neilsen company and are being tabulated. You are in Great Britain, so no cares if you watch it at all. If you want to make a difference? Figure out who the advertisers are and boycott them.
no subject
Date: 2018-04-01 09:55 pm (UTC)I presumed so, yes. But the stated reason was 'not interested in reboots', which threw me a little.
Have zero interest in Roseanne, and would never have heard of how awful she is, if it wasn't for the new show. Like, was vaguely aware of her/her show when I was growing up, but don't think I ever watched it.
It'll be interesting to see if people try to boycott it, like with Laura Ingraham...
no subject
Date: 2018-04-01 10:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-04-02 06:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-04-02 12:59 pm (UTC)LOL! Yeah, I figured the bigotry was a given and had been discussed to death already. ;-)
[Roseanne has a reputation for being the worst television star to work for EVER. Writers were being fired right and left, just for annoying her or not making her look good. Think Trump as a woman, that's Roseanne.]