(no subject)

[shadowkat]

1. Debating joining Romance Writers of America as an Associate-Member. Yes, I've published a novel, but no, it's not really a "romance" per se. I tend to be an unconventional writer. I'm unconventional in regards to practically everything...which has made life difficult for me. I'd be much happier if I could be conventional. But it's just not how I'm put together.

The romance novel that I'm writing is highly unconventional. So not sure it will work. But I want a support group or someone I can share writing with after I finish. But am afraid of doing it.

Sigh. I'm great at writing, I suck at the whole sharing bit.

2. Got the ancestry DNA results back, sort of disappointing. Still can't go back further than the 1600s and 1500s.

Mainly Irish.

Breakdown? (It's in regions because they can't be that specific).

34% Irish/Welsh/Scotish

- Connact, Ireland (ie Northern Ireland)
-Ulster, Ireland (ie, Western Ireland)

25% Western Europe (Basically Belgium, Germany, France)

22% - Scandinavian

7% - European East ( Ukraine, Russia, Czech, Croatia, Poland)

5% - Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal)

3% - Great Britain (basically everything that isn't Cornwall, Ireland, Wales, and Scotland)

2% - Europe South (Italy and Greece)

>1% - Finland and Northwest Russia

>1% - Middle East

So interesting. Also I managed to trace one relative back to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars.
I'm just not sure I have the right one.

3. I'm weirdly pissed off about Lucifer's cancellation. I don't why. It was irritating me this year, but I saw potential and I honestly think S4 could have been great. Also, I don't understand why the stupid ass CW couldn't save it instead of giving us yet another tween soapy college kid drama/spin-off of the Vampire Diaries. (I didn't watch the originals and am bloody tired of Vampire shows.)
But alas, the CW is geared towards teenagers and early twenty-somethings, not the over 45 group like myself.

The channels are "Branding" themselves. In case you haven't noticed. ABC is female oriented/family shows, CW is teen and twenty-something shows (sort of similar to ABC's Freeform), Fox is 18-35 male shows and dramas, NBC is 18-35 hipster comedies and dramas, and CBS is 35-65 procedurals and family sitcoms. It has the highest ratings, because let's face it everyone under the age of 45 is streaming and doesn't watch broadcast television.

Anyhow, I considered boycotting the CW, ie. not watching anything on it any longer. Which I can sort of do...since I'm not that into either Riverdale or Crazy Ex, and I may just watch Legends on either Hulu or Netflix.

But I doubt anyone would care. No one cares what I watch, except maybe you guys? My viewing habits aren't tracked.

4. I'm entertaining myself by participating in a General Hospital Fanboard on FB. Yes, it's crazy-ass stupid like all fanboards at times. We have the character hate, we have the crazy character love for evil villains with no redemptive qualities, we have the grudge matches, we have the whining, and the hate of storylines. We have the squeeing over gowns and cute boys.

It's fandom.

Soap Opera fandoms are..well no crazier than the others, no wait...possibly crazier. I see more interesting discussions in others. Because the writing is admittedly better. I mean, that stands to reason. It's the difference between writing a script in four hours, filming it in eight hours then jumping to the next one, versus, writing a script in three to four days, filming it in seven days, and editing as you go. I mean Buffy filmed an episode over a seven day period with often 22 takes.
General Hospital films an episode in an eight - twelve hour period, with only one or two takes if that. There's gotta be a difference in quality.

Comments

[mefisto]

I'll randomly insert here that I just got back from the James Marsters panel at WhedonCon. I got to ask him the question you and I put together: the difference between theater and television. He loved the question and gave a very long answer which I'll try to reconstruct below.

He said that being a theater actor was like being a Beni Hana chef, where you make a big production and all attention is focused on you. With TV, in contrast, you're more like a bit of celery chopped up by the chef (writer, director, etc.). He said that in theater all the actors have techniques with which they focus the audience's attention on a particular part of the stage that's necessary at that time. In TV, that need disappears.

He also said that TV calls for more naturalistic acting, and not the very expressive stuff you need on stage. He had to learn to tone things down for Buffy and he did that by watching ASH.

That's the substance of it; as I said, he gave a very long response. I'm hoping it'll be on YouTube, but I don't know.

[shadowkat]

Oh, thank you!! I was wondering. And it will be on youtube. People record him at those things on their cell phones and post to youtube. It's WhedonCon right?

He re-confirmed more or less what I thought was true. I could have a very long conversation with Marsters about that alone. LOL!

This bit is interesting though...

With TV, in contrast, you're more like a bit of celery chopped up by the chef (writer, director, etc.).

That makes sense and is a good analogy. Actor's have 0 control on television. Most of them just do TV for the money. And they all want a sitcom -- because sitcom's have live audiences, so you get a bit of the theater thing going for you. Also sitcoms are reasonable hours -- 8 hour gigs.

He also said that TV calls for more naturalistic acting, and not the very expressive stuff you need on stage. He had to learn to tone things down for Buffy and he did that by watching ASH.

And as a result, he's character seemed to change the most. Which was why the writer's started doing certain things with it. He went from being really theaterical in S2 and S3, to gradually becoming more and more contained.

Screen is similar. Has to be more naturalistic. In theater, they have to see you at the back of the hall. Alec Baldwin stated that Jessica Lang struggled when she did her first theater role -- Tennesee Williams' Streetcar Named Desire on Broadway. The front row thought she was brilliant, but everyone further back...thought she was terrible and not doing anything. No expression. She'd come from screen, and hadn't figured out yet that theater acting is different.
And he goes on to explain it. Says more or less the same things Marsters did, just differently.

But, here's where I'd challenge him on it. If you go too far with the naturalistic style -- you look bored on screen and stiff. A lot of actors make that mistake, they don't much of anything. The good ones -- manage to do it with their eyes. You really need to learn how to emote with your eyes and that can be hard to do.

[mefisto]

Yes, WhedonCon.

Your comment about the eyes is spot on. I've noticed in the past that good screen actors have very expressive eyes (and faces).

JM clearly would have been happy to spend more time discussing the question, but he had a room full of people. An interview with him on that would be a better format.

[shadowkat]

I honestly wish I could interview him regarding acting in various mediums and the choices he made as an actor. For instance? Difference between nudity/sex scenes on stage and film? Or how do you approach these types of scenes, I mean I'd find them impossible to do, and wonder how he handles them? Also how do they handle doing fifteen to thirty takes of being thrown against a wall or kissing someone they don't like?

[shadowkat]

Oh, forgot to ask, how many inane questions did they ask him? Like whose your favorite actor to work with? Etc. I saw one, in which they asked what their favorite bean was. LOL!

[mefisto]

The questions weren't too bad, for the most part. He did get asked his favorite place to travel, and said that the Gaudi Cathedral in Barcelona (Sagrada Familia) was great.

The issue of sex scenes did come up. He said that they were like that dream where you're naked and everyone else is clothed. That's not sexy for you.

He also commented that kissing scenes aren't glamorous. He reminded everyone that a glamour is a magic trick, and so are kissing scenes. He said that they're impossibly precise, because you have to get just the right angle, stay out of SMG's light, etc. He mentioned that one kiss took 14 takes.

He also said it was hard for him with SMG because he had thought of her as his kid sister until then.

[shadowkat]

Somebody asked him what it was like kissing SMG again??? LOL! Sigh. Poor boy. He's answered that one about fifteen to twenty times now. Seriously, don't people watch these Q&A's on youtube? I'd have asked the difference between kissing someone in a stage play and on screen. And how he prepares for these types of scenes as an actor and what's the difference in preparation between stage and screen or if it's the same, regardless of the number of takes. But no, instead we get the same dumb question...what was it like kissing SMG. He doesn't know. I mean come on.

I just watched an answer on a previous Q&A, where someone asked who he preferred being in bed with Dru or Buffy. And he said, to his recollection he was never in bed with Dru...or did he misremember it? Then he asked if they wanted the truth or the answer they wanted? Truth. So he said, well, exactly the same as above. Not fun, hates doing them, etc. And I think SMG probably annoyed him -- she was a star at 17, and very whiny (as teen girls from broken homes who hit stardom early often are). He was an unemployed, struggling Theater actor and producer used to firing people for being whiny, dead-broke, when he started -- and 32 years of age. (He said in one Q&A, where he was asked if he preferred working on Angel or Buffy, and he said Angel, mainly because everyone was 10 years older than the cast of Buffy, and as a result more professional and less whiny. Which makes sense. An 15-25 year old actor is whiny, a 32-50 year old one, isn't, they are frigging grateful to have a job.) They had a bit of a bantering relationship on the set.

In another, he was asked John Barrowman or Buffy or Dru, and he said Barrowman, because Barrowman had his back. On Buffy, SMG would taunt him -- she had a no nudity clause in her contract, so she'd come to the cold sets in a muffler and gloves, and he'd be wearing nothing but a sock. And she'd tease him and make fun of him. While on Torchwood, he had hurt himself in a previous scene, and couldn't tell anyone, and Barrowman found out, took him secretly to his trailer, and had him stitched up. Barrowman is more seasoned, from theater, and has struggled more than Gellar did.

Last night I was tooling about the internet, and stumbled on outtakes from "Smashed", "Dead Things", and "Wrecked", where they have to kiss each other for 14 different takes. Have to be thrown against a wall for 10 takes. Until they start to flub lines. Over and over and over and over and over...and I'm thinking, okay, that's just torture. These directors and show-runners are complete and utter assholes.

Apparently Stanley Kubrick was worse -- he had up to 70 takes. People love Clint Eastwood because he has less than three takes, if that. For an actor? The best take is the first one. But they seldom use that one.

[mefisto]

I don't think he got asked specifically about kissing SMG. I think that just came up in the course of one of his answers. It's hard to remember the full hour of Q&A.

[mefisto]

Oh, I remember what was probably the worst question. It was something like this: "Of all the characters on Buffy or Angel who you were *not* romantically involved with, which one would you pick?"

His answer was Fred. I guess lots of folk would have preferred Angel or Xander. :)

[shadowkat]

He's been asked that one before. LOL! That's an impossible question to answer. They ask him stuff like that constantly.

[shadowkat]

It should be available on youtube in a couple of months. Too early now. Just happened.

[dar_vidder]

I'm weirdly pissed off about Lucifer's cancellation. I don't why. It was irritating me this year, but I saw potential and I honestly think S4 could have been great.


Me, too. Without Pierce, I think the show could've rebounded in a big way. I'd known Lucifer was on the bubble this year, but the odds seemed to have been slightly in favor of renewal so it was a real shock to me when it was cancelled. From the very beginning of Lucifer, it felt like a show that could last successfully for 5-6-7 seasons. It just really had a lot of potential and it irks me that we'll never get to see that potential fully realized.

[shadowkat]

Feel the same way. I was a bit surprised too when I realized it was in danger of being cancelled. I knew it had problems, but not to that degree.

I really don't understand the taste of the people selected by the Neilsen's. You couldn't pay me enough money to watch some of those shows.

[atpo_onm]

Also, I don't understand why the stupid ass CW couldn't save it.

Lucifer isn't a CW show-- it's on FOX.

You certainly aren't the only one out there who's pissed. Here's just one link I easily found:

http://deadline.com/2018/05/lucifer-canceled-reaction-joe-henderson-tom-ellis-heartbreaking-1202388736/

[shadowkat]

Eh, you misread the post. I know it's not a CW show. We were hoping it would be saved by another channel. Last Man Standing was on ABC and CMT, but they cancelled it and FOX picked it up. Lucifer isn't a FOX show, it's developed by Warner Brothers, which is part of CBS and CW, hence the hope it would be picked up by CW.

But CW only wants shows directed at folks under the age of 35. It's demo is 18-35 year olds. Lucifer is targeted towards an older demographic.