Attention Vincent K (Connor) fans...

[shadowkat]

Apparently the actor is now in the AMC series Mad Men - and recently discussed that role and ATS here:

http://www.tvguide.com/news/070816-01

Wales and I tried Mad Men and couldn't make it through the pilot - bored us and the sound was weird. But others on my flist and critics in general seem to adore it, so what do I know? ;-)

Comments

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

I doubt there's a VK fan out that doesn't know about Mad Men. I have yet to watch it because the premise doesn't interest me, and VK has scary hair.

Weatherman Connor

[ann1962]

VK has scary hair

And weird jowls. He looks 45 or something. I too was weirded out enough not to continue watching.

Re: Weatherman Connor

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

He's so not the type of guy you want to stuff in a business suit. He just looks constipated.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think I saw him in the first episode that I tried to watch and didn't recognize him. Kept thinking, who is that actor?? I've seen him somewhere before. Then found the article on a friends lj and went, ohhh. It does however say something about VK's ability - the fact that he can do roles that are completely different - means he'll have a long career and will avoid the hell of typecasting.

I don't find the premise that interesting either, obviously. 1950s? Just not my time period.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

The '50's is probably my *least* favorite era. Bleh.

The VK fans I've talked to say that his new role is kind of creepy, so that's a little bit of typecasting (mostly off his movie roles, rather than Connor per se).

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ah. Didn't watch it long enough to know. And I've only seen him as Connor.

Me too - definitely not a fan of the fifties. That and the Medieval Age for some reason really turn me off.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

I'm don't care for medieval stuff, either, which is why I'm not a fan of 90% of the fantasy genre. Trappings of that era bore me.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

It is a problem with the fantasy genre. I have no idea why it's an unwritten rule of fantasy that it take place in Medieval Times. The only fantasy that seems to jump out of that is *dark fantasy* and/or *gothic*.
But for some reason - people have ruled you can't write fantasy without it taking place in Medieval Times. I even tried writing one - combo fantasy/science fiction but grew bored of that time period and had no interest in researching it - which all fantasy writers, or rather the successful fantasy writers - do. Some of them I think like researching more than writing.

At any rate - I have had the same difficulties with fantasy. And it is why, for me at least, so many of the fantasy novels I've read - are alike. Let's see sword, socerer, horse, princess in distress, mead, troubadoors....sigh. After a while? I get bored.

I grew tired of George RR Martin's novels because of the Medieval trappings. Loved the characters, but found the concentration on battles which lasted forever and medieval routine deeply boring after a while and he's one of the better ones.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

People romantacize that era, but it was dirty, brutal, and most distinctly *not* magical. I suppose people want to return to a time when people as a rule believed in magic, though, because that makes a better setting for stories of magic than our era.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think that's what I liked about the Harry Potter and Butcher novels, the view that magic could exist in an era that isn't Medieval Times.

And I agree - they do romanticize it. Women were treated horrendously back then, as little more than property or chattle. In fact there are rules on the books stating women were considered chattle - to be done with as their husbands or fathers or brothers wished. (Shudder). It was my problem with a recent book I read by SM Stirling, that I eventually gave up on. Martin's books are a tad more realistic and less romantic in nature.

But I think you're right - there's a view that in modern times - technology is magic or science has taken the place of magic. In ancient times - science tended to be magical because it was unexplained or not understood. Da Vinci who was in reality a scientist, might have been considered by people at his time to be a magician.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

As a rule, I'm not a big fan of history, historical novels, or fiction stories with a past-era-like feel, such as those medieval fantasies. Precisely because I would never want to live during those times. It would have been hell.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I guess it has a lot to do with why you read books. To be entertained or to be informed or both? Or just to escape into a world that is better or nicer than your own?

Personally, I find books about time periods I would not have wanted to live in - oddly comforting. Weird, I know. It's sort of the whole - misery loves company deal - or, more likely - thank god I'm not doing that or living there - very happy to be here instead - which come to think of it, might be similar to why some people adore horror novels and may explain my own odd love/hate fascination with that particular genre.

I watch tv sometimes with the same principal - and tend to prefer to see the characters going through hell than living these blissful existences. (What that says about me? I really don't want to know or speculate about...While I hate *physical torture* per se or too much of it - I do admit to a somewhat sadistic enjoyment of painful character studies.)

That said, the Medieval age gets a bit old after a while. Maybe because it has been overdone?

I've read a lot of historicals - not overly fond of them. Not because of the time period per se but...well, most are more interested in the time period and the author's research on it, than actually telling me a story or developing a character - almost to the extent that I sort of wish they'd give up the pretense and write a non-fiction novel about the period. Examples of boring historical novelists? John Jakes and Gore Vidal. Howard Fast was sort of fun - but he likes the 1960s to 1970s - which I admit a certain fondness for. Dorothy Dunnett is equally fun - but she's pre-Elizabethan and around the time of Queen Mary - a period that I enjoy reading about. And she's into politics - which I enjoy. Diana Galbadon is just silly. Patrick O'Brien - interesting if you are interested in the Napoleanic Wars and Naval History. So for me? It depends.

But I can see why you don't like them at all.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

It's not that I want to see people living happy, blissful existences. There are problems in every era and culture. I just have personal issues with certain *kinds* of miserable existences, and prefer my literature to explore other kinds of miseries instead.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I thought the first couple of episodes of Mad Men were funny, they went out of their way to have characters saying things which we know aren't true (which contrast what people believed then with what we've learned since then), but subsequently the show has gotten more repetitive and dull. I had hoped they would move into more edgy, and/or satirical directions, but I was disappointed.
I hoped the show would give Vincent/Conner a chance to show his range, but not so much...at least from what I could see.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Our difficulty with it was we just couldn't make out what the people were saying half the time. They mumbled. We also felt that it was a tad over the top with the sexism and racism in places. But mostly? I think my friend and I had troubles with the premise to begin with...1950s isn't a time period that interests me for some reason. It's one of the reasons that I keep procrastinating writing this story I have in my head about my my great cousin on my grandmother's side of the family - about 1/4 of the story would take place in the late 1940s, early 1950s - meaning that I'd have to do a lot of research on a period that doesn't interest me in the slightest. It's also why I struggled with a lot of the entertainment, clothing, music and other trends of the early 00's - front end of Bush's reign - all retro 1950s. Now, we've finally moved some of that - thank god. The one period in history that I find deeply bland and dull is the 1950s. I love the periods before it and the periods after it.

It's very odd - there are two historical periods that I don't like that much and always groaned when I was forced to read about them, study them, or deal with them:

1. Medieval Period or Middle Ages - also known as The Dark Ages
2. 1950s

1700s also get on my nerves, but that's only because it was the only historical period we seemed to study from kindergarten to the early fifth grade. When I lived in PA - we'd do the explorers up to the Revolutionary War, then the next year, do it again, then do it again. It wasn't until I moved to KC that we finally started studying a different period - and I fell in love with social studies or history - to an extent that I came thisclose to making it my major in College. The period we flipped to?
The Hebrews in ancient times, then we jumped to Elizabethan Times and English History.

At any rate - for some reason or other, I find the more culturally conservative decades uninteresting.

Good to know Mad Men didn't get much better. The critics seem to adore it for some reason. I prefer Burn Notice on USA which is opposite and stars a very hot Jeffrey Donovan and Bruce Campbell (of Briscoe County Jr, Bubba Hutpec, and Evil Dead fame). I adore Bruce Campbell. The man has the art of understated acting down.