(no subject)
Jun. 9th, 2013 04:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Finished my marathon of the first two seasons of Falling Skies via TNT. It's a bit of a smash-up of the 1980s Battle Star Galatica, The Walking Dead, War of the Worlds, and Close Encounters of the Third Kind with a touch of Robert Heinlein's The Puppet Masters. Fantastic special effects - not quite the same level as Caprica and BSG, but close. Also some interesting guest stars - to date? Blair Brown, Terry Quinn, Dwight Schultz, and Matt Czerchny. All without exception have played complex villains. Actually, they've become type-cast as such, we sort of know they are going to be playing complicated villains when they pop up.
It's a fun series. Far better written and produced than most of the sci-fi series on at the moment. Which admittedly isn't saying all that much. Helps if you like the characters and actors. But then it always does. Can anyone watch a series where they don't?
Falling Skies is about Tom Mason (Noah Wylie), an American History professor at Boston University, who finds himself widowed and strapped with three sons, during a devastating alien invasion. The sons, Hal, Matt and Ben, rang in age between 8-16. One of the sons has been taken by the aliens. Desperate to survive he joins the Second Mass. Resistance Force, lead by Captain Weaver (Will Patton) and Col. Porter. Col. Porter names Mason Weaver's second in command, before taking off to lead the 4th and 5th Mass. Resistances. While on a scouting mission for food, Mason and his son Hal see Ben, the son who was taken by the aliens. The boy wears a harnass, which appears to be biological in origin. Mason wants to save his son - but can't do it, until he's certain it won't put the 300 civilians he is now co-leading with Captain Weaver in jeopardy. He is also involved with a doctor, Ann Glass (Moon Bloodgood), who has suffered her own traumas, and struggles to give the civilians more of a voice in the increasingly militarized set-up.
That's the set-up. Over time the relationships change and expand. Ben gets rescued - but that's just the start of his arc...which includes leading an alien rebellion. Hal loses his girl-friend Karen to the Skitters (aliens), and Karen ends up becoming one of the series best and most disturbing villains. Hal also strikes up a relationship with a woman older than him (by about five to six years, although you can't tell since the actors appear to be the same age - there's no way the actor playing Hal is 16) - Maggie, who is a world-weary ex-con, with a resume right out of a dystopic soap opera.
Turns out not all the kids mind being connected or harnassed by the aliens - some rather enjoy it. It gives them security, a home, safety, a sense of well-being. Yet, on the other side of the equation - the aliens make them do horrible things and often use them as shields or a means of hurting others of their race.
One thing this series does quite well - is the kids. They are written remarkably well. Usually I find them annoying in television serials. But here, they work. This is rare. All the kids work. Usually you can only find one. In this respect the series reminds me a little of Spielberg's Poltergiest, Close Encounter's of the Third Kind, Jaws, Jurassic Park, and ET.
They act like kids. You can identify with them. And the writers neither romanticize nor demonize them.
The aliens are far from pretty - a cross between an aranchnid and a lizard. And the harnasses are parasitic creatures that forever connect those who have been harnassed with each other and their ailen masters. But the concept of freedom, choice, slavery, and power are all played with in some interesting ways.
While the series has its fair share of cliche sci-fi moments, and sentimentality (what Spielberg production doesn't?), it is also compelling, there's some excellent character moments intertwined, and the characters do change and evolve organically and subtly as we move forward - in that respect it's far more realistic than a lot of sci-shows that jump a bit too quickly ahead.
Overall rating to date? B
It's worth a watch. Plus a heck of a lot of fun to marathon.
2. Been thinking lately off and on about what it is that grabs me in a story, why I continue to watch it? Also which characters turn me on or off. It's odd because what I enjoy in fiction does not always translate to reality or vice versus. For example? A character that I find fascinating in fiction and love to pieces, I could not run faster away from - if I met them in real life.
Characters in fiction that I can't abide or find grating? Often have these characteristics:
1. Judgmental or highly critical.
2. Moralistic - sees the world in shades of black and white, right and wrong, no gray
3. Hypocritical - sees everyone else's flaws but their own
4. Righteous - won't question their actions or cause ever
5. Whines or Complains incessantly - self-explanatory
Weirdly in fiction these traits tend to be more exaggerated than they are in reality, well unless you are watching a reality tv series (but those aren't real anyhow).
It's difficult to explain why you dislike certain characters...when it is based on a trait and not an action, or why you like certain characters for that matter. It is possible for me to enjoy watching a character who does horrible things (well within reason), and possible for me to despise watching a honorable noble character. It depends on how the character is written. And why they are doing the things that they are doing.
For example - I was trying and failing miserably at it - to explain why I didn't care about Eddard, Robb, and Catelynn Stark in A Song of Ice and Fire aka Game of Thrones. . I think it really comes down to how Martin wrote them. It's not what they did per se, it's how it was written that turned me off the characters - although to be fair I felt much the same way about them in the tv series, so maybe not? Every time I debate this - we get into what the characters did. ie. Catelynn lost her sons, has been traumatized, how can you not feel sympathy for her? Because, I thought, of how she's written - she's written as a cold judgmental and hypocritical bitch, who likes to feel sorry for herself and manipulates her son into being a King to seek vengeance. Which granted is understandable (the feeling sorry for herself and manipulation part), but if she weren't such a cold and judgemental bitch from page one, I could have maybe liked her a bit better. And no, it has nothing to do with Jon Snow, I'm somewhat ambivalent about that character. People always assume you don't like a character because of how they are treating another character. That's not always the case for me. It's usually more complicated than that.
I had similar problems with the Buffy fandom, attempting to explain why I wasn't a fan of Andrew or Robin Wood. The characters and actors portraying them (definitely a combination of both since I haven't been able to stand either in anything else), just grated on my nerves.
Sometimes it's how the actor chooses to play the character. Example - in Game of Thrones, I actually liked the characters better in the tv series, even though they were both written better in the books. The right actor or a well-cast one can sometimes make a character that is grating on the page, more appealing on the screen.
This is also, obviously, very much a mileage thing or subjective. What grates on one viewers nerves turns another one on. For example? I actually liked Conner on Angel, who many viewers despised. I found the actor hugely entertaining and moving at times (it may well be in this case the actor not the writers - because the actor managed to do the same thing on Mad Men in a few scenes). Cordelia in direct contrast - a fan favorite, grated on my nerves most of the time. When a character grates and you don't quite know why - it's very hard to defend this online or off for that matter. I just don't like them, okay? The character just rubbed me the wrong way. Could well be that they remind you of someone subconsciously that you despise - and it's a knee-jerk reaction. (I'm half convinced the 50% of the negative reactions I've seen to the character of Spike are that - he reminds people of something or someone - the character hits a nerve. Unfortunately for them, the character hits the opposite nerve, or a positive nerve in 65% of the people who adore him. And in the case of Spike - it's not the actor, it's the writing, well 80% of the time anyhow. There are a few fans out there, who dislike the actor.)
Another example is Doctor Who. Ten or the Tenth Doctor...is actually amongst my favorites due to the actor who portrayed him and how he was written. But I know people who despise the character for his actions, in much the same way they despise Spike and Jaime Lannister. "I will never forgive the character for doing this _________". And what bugs one weary soul won't bug another. For example? I hated the nerd trio in Buffy, which people who hate 10, adored. I can't wrap my head around it. For me - ten's actions are unrealistic and easy to forget, in short because I understand them? Because they also made some sense - he could either erase Donna's memories or let her die, he could either save an echo of River Song and let her remain with her friends in the sancturary of the library...connected in spirit to him, or let her be consumed by the abyss. And the actor who portrayed the role belied a sense of warmth and remorse...that was compelling. The nerd trio...just grated. Their actions were not justifiable and they reminded me uncomfortably of why I don't want to meet a lot of people in sci-fi fandoms. I've met the nerd trio in life, they squick me. There it is - in a nutshell - when a character hits a trigger on you, you react.
Taste, I'm not certain is in most cases something we can explain. Why we love something one month and hate it the next? No clue. If I could figure it out - I'd make a bundle in marketing.
The trick is, I think, not judging other people's tastes. Which of course everyone does. 95% of kerfuffles are due to people judging someone they don't know very well tastes or misunderstanding them. One or the other. And clinging to people who appear to echo or validate their own. The narcissism of the internet - is well this desire to hunt someone who mirrors your tastes, likes, and views as opposed to questioning them. In part because most of us, if we are lucky are surrounded by people who question us, and our tastes. If you are like me, and no reason you should be, you may well be online hunting people who share your tastes and views - who are like-minded. The trick is not to get upset when they disagree with you - 40% of the time.
ie. I still like you even if you hated or as the case may be adore Joss Whedon, Shakespeare, Supernatural, Doctor Who, Scandal, President Bush (harder...definitely harder to do, since I despised him), etc...
It's a fun series. Far better written and produced than most of the sci-fi series on at the moment. Which admittedly isn't saying all that much. Helps if you like the characters and actors. But then it always does. Can anyone watch a series where they don't?
Falling Skies is about Tom Mason (Noah Wylie), an American History professor at Boston University, who finds himself widowed and strapped with three sons, during a devastating alien invasion. The sons, Hal, Matt and Ben, rang in age between 8-16. One of the sons has been taken by the aliens. Desperate to survive he joins the Second Mass. Resistance Force, lead by Captain Weaver (Will Patton) and Col. Porter. Col. Porter names Mason Weaver's second in command, before taking off to lead the 4th and 5th Mass. Resistances. While on a scouting mission for food, Mason and his son Hal see Ben, the son who was taken by the aliens. The boy wears a harnass, which appears to be biological in origin. Mason wants to save his son - but can't do it, until he's certain it won't put the 300 civilians he is now co-leading with Captain Weaver in jeopardy. He is also involved with a doctor, Ann Glass (Moon Bloodgood), who has suffered her own traumas, and struggles to give the civilians more of a voice in the increasingly militarized set-up.
That's the set-up. Over time the relationships change and expand. Ben gets rescued - but that's just the start of his arc...which includes leading an alien rebellion. Hal loses his girl-friend Karen to the Skitters (aliens), and Karen ends up becoming one of the series best and most disturbing villains. Hal also strikes up a relationship with a woman older than him (by about five to six years, although you can't tell since the actors appear to be the same age - there's no way the actor playing Hal is 16) - Maggie, who is a world-weary ex-con, with a resume right out of a dystopic soap opera.
Turns out not all the kids mind being connected or harnassed by the aliens - some rather enjoy it. It gives them security, a home, safety, a sense of well-being. Yet, on the other side of the equation - the aliens make them do horrible things and often use them as shields or a means of hurting others of their race.
One thing this series does quite well - is the kids. They are written remarkably well. Usually I find them annoying in television serials. But here, they work. This is rare. All the kids work. Usually you can only find one. In this respect the series reminds me a little of Spielberg's Poltergiest, Close Encounter's of the Third Kind, Jaws, Jurassic Park, and ET.
They act like kids. You can identify with them. And the writers neither romanticize nor demonize them.
The aliens are far from pretty - a cross between an aranchnid and a lizard. And the harnasses are parasitic creatures that forever connect those who have been harnassed with each other and their ailen masters. But the concept of freedom, choice, slavery, and power are all played with in some interesting ways.
While the series has its fair share of cliche sci-fi moments, and sentimentality (what Spielberg production doesn't?), it is also compelling, there's some excellent character moments intertwined, and the characters do change and evolve organically and subtly as we move forward - in that respect it's far more realistic than a lot of sci-shows that jump a bit too quickly ahead.
Overall rating to date? B
It's worth a watch. Plus a heck of a lot of fun to marathon.
2. Been thinking lately off and on about what it is that grabs me in a story, why I continue to watch it? Also which characters turn me on or off. It's odd because what I enjoy in fiction does not always translate to reality or vice versus. For example? A character that I find fascinating in fiction and love to pieces, I could not run faster away from - if I met them in real life.
Characters in fiction that I can't abide or find grating? Often have these characteristics:
1. Judgmental or highly critical.
2. Moralistic - sees the world in shades of black and white, right and wrong, no gray
3. Hypocritical - sees everyone else's flaws but their own
4. Righteous - won't question their actions or cause ever
5. Whines or Complains incessantly - self-explanatory
Weirdly in fiction these traits tend to be more exaggerated than they are in reality, well unless you are watching a reality tv series (but those aren't real anyhow).
It's difficult to explain why you dislike certain characters...when it is based on a trait and not an action, or why you like certain characters for that matter. It is possible for me to enjoy watching a character who does horrible things (well within reason), and possible for me to despise watching a honorable noble character. It depends on how the character is written. And why they are doing the things that they are doing.
For example - I was trying and failing miserably at it - to explain why I didn't care about Eddard, Robb, and Catelynn Stark in A Song of Ice and Fire aka Game of Thrones. . I think it really comes down to how Martin wrote them. It's not what they did per se, it's how it was written that turned me off the characters - although to be fair I felt much the same way about them in the tv series, so maybe not? Every time I debate this - we get into what the characters did. ie. Catelynn lost her sons, has been traumatized, how can you not feel sympathy for her? Because, I thought, of how she's written - she's written as a cold judgmental and hypocritical bitch, who likes to feel sorry for herself and manipulates her son into being a King to seek vengeance. Which granted is understandable (the feeling sorry for herself and manipulation part), but if she weren't such a cold and judgemental bitch from page one, I could have maybe liked her a bit better. And no, it has nothing to do with Jon Snow, I'm somewhat ambivalent about that character. People always assume you don't like a character because of how they are treating another character. That's not always the case for me. It's usually more complicated than that.
I had similar problems with the Buffy fandom, attempting to explain why I wasn't a fan of Andrew or Robin Wood. The characters and actors portraying them (definitely a combination of both since I haven't been able to stand either in anything else), just grated on my nerves.
Sometimes it's how the actor chooses to play the character. Example - in Game of Thrones, I actually liked the characters better in the tv series, even though they were both written better in the books. The right actor or a well-cast one can sometimes make a character that is grating on the page, more appealing on the screen.
This is also, obviously, very much a mileage thing or subjective. What grates on one viewers nerves turns another one on. For example? I actually liked Conner on Angel, who many viewers despised. I found the actor hugely entertaining and moving at times (it may well be in this case the actor not the writers - because the actor managed to do the same thing on Mad Men in a few scenes). Cordelia in direct contrast - a fan favorite, grated on my nerves most of the time. When a character grates and you don't quite know why - it's very hard to defend this online or off for that matter. I just don't like them, okay? The character just rubbed me the wrong way. Could well be that they remind you of someone subconsciously that you despise - and it's a knee-jerk reaction. (I'm half convinced the 50% of the negative reactions I've seen to the character of Spike are that - he reminds people of something or someone - the character hits a nerve. Unfortunately for them, the character hits the opposite nerve, or a positive nerve in 65% of the people who adore him. And in the case of Spike - it's not the actor, it's the writing, well 80% of the time anyhow. There are a few fans out there, who dislike the actor.)
Another example is Doctor Who. Ten or the Tenth Doctor...is actually amongst my favorites due to the actor who portrayed him and how he was written. But I know people who despise the character for his actions, in much the same way they despise Spike and Jaime Lannister. "I will never forgive the character for doing this _________". And what bugs one weary soul won't bug another. For example? I hated the nerd trio in Buffy, which people who hate 10, adored. I can't wrap my head around it. For me - ten's actions are unrealistic and easy to forget, in short because I understand them? Because they also made some sense - he could either erase Donna's memories or let her die, he could either save an echo of River Song and let her remain with her friends in the sancturary of the library...connected in spirit to him, or let her be consumed by the abyss. And the actor who portrayed the role belied a sense of warmth and remorse...that was compelling. The nerd trio...just grated. Their actions were not justifiable and they reminded me uncomfortably of why I don't want to meet a lot of people in sci-fi fandoms. I've met the nerd trio in life, they squick me. There it is - in a nutshell - when a character hits a trigger on you, you react.
Taste, I'm not certain is in most cases something we can explain. Why we love something one month and hate it the next? No clue. If I could figure it out - I'd make a bundle in marketing.
The trick is, I think, not judging other people's tastes. Which of course everyone does. 95% of kerfuffles are due to people judging someone they don't know very well tastes or misunderstanding them. One or the other. And clinging to people who appear to echo or validate their own. The narcissism of the internet - is well this desire to hunt someone who mirrors your tastes, likes, and views as opposed to questioning them. In part because most of us, if we are lucky are surrounded by people who question us, and our tastes. If you are like me, and no reason you should be, you may well be online hunting people who share your tastes and views - who are like-minded. The trick is not to get upset when they disagree with you - 40% of the time.
ie. I still like you even if you hated or as the case may be adore Joss Whedon, Shakespeare, Supernatural, Doctor Who, Scandal, President Bush (harder...definitely harder to do, since I despised him), etc...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-06-09 09:36 pm (UTC)That said, I have absolutely zero investment in vengeance for the Starka or their rebuilding Winterfell or Sansa being Queen in the Borth or any of the things that fandom as a whole is panting for! I certainly wish the young 'UBS well and hope they all get happy endings but I'm seriously bored by Sansa and Bran's chapters (I do love Arya but I think she's turning into a wee assassin which is not exactly a happy ending.) I just find the Lannisters soooo much more interesting as characters and I love their messed-up family dynamic so much more than the "happy families are all alike" Starks!
And I am so sick of the people who are like "Jaime threw Bran out the window he can't ever change or do better" to the point where they even doubt the veracity of his story about killing Aerys (though no on Shae explained what possible reason he'd have for lying to Brienne at that point) and dismiss his saving Brienne by saying that it doesn't count as a good deed because he cares about her. Gah, same arguments I read about Spike all those years ago, as though risking your life for someone only counts as a good deed if they are total strangers!
no subject
Date: 2013-06-09 11:55 pm (UTC)And I am so sick of the people who are like "Jaime threw Bran out the window he can't ever change or do better" to the point where they even doubt the veracity of his story about killing Aerys (though no on Shae explained what possible reason he'd have for lying to Brienne at that point)
I agree. I roll my eyes. For heaven's sake folks, the kid was climbing to the top of a 20 foot tower. It's a miracle he survived. Plus Jamie lost his hand, he paid for it. In spades. And Jamie regretted doing it at the time, he even said as much later.
Plus it's not like the other characters haven't done equally bad things. There's nothing that aggravates me more than people imposing their moralistic attitude about a fictional characters onto me.
and dismiss his saving Brienne by saying that it doesn't count as a good deed because he cares about her. Gah, same arguments I read about Spike all those years ago, as though risking your life for someone only counts as a good deed if they are total strangers!
Yep the reason I'm staying away from the fandom in a nutshell. Tired of those arguments. The Doctor Who arguments on my flist are bad enough - geeze, people, if you can't handle morally flawed fictional characters - go watch something that isn't violent such as Parenthood.
I do not mind critical analysis of a character. Delving into why they do it.
And the justifications. But moralizing always comes across as grand-standing.
That said, I have absolutely zero investment in vengeance for the Starka or their rebuilding Winterfell or Sansa being Queen in the Borth or any of the things that fandom as a whole is panting for! I certainly wish the young 'UBS well and hope they all get happy endings but I'm seriously bored by Sansa and Bran's chapters (I do love Arya but I think she's turning into a wee assassin which is ...
It's odd but I find Bran and Sansa interesting in the tv series. In the books they were grim and boring. There's several characters in the books I just could not generate any interest for: Sansa, Bran, Catelynn, Robb, Theon (god, why did they have to bring him back - I was hoping he was dead and gone, really don't need a redemption arc for him), Davos, Quentin, Dario, Renly, Stannis, Melisandra, Joffrey...
I am on the fence about Jon Snow. I like him in the tv series. But he bores me in the books..for some reason.
Basically reading for Jamie, Ayra, Tyrion, Brienne, Dany, and Samwell.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-10 12:17 am (UTC)I've definitely experienced the TV effect with Team Dragonstone: I love Stannis, Mel, Davos on the show :) Jon I'm kind of indifferent to because he seems so sheltered by the narrative - every hard moral choice he has to make ends up being decided by someone else for him (Qhorin or Ygritte killing the old guy etc.) and also because his role is more typically fantasy and this more easy to predict IMO.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-10 01:45 am (UTC)Every once and a while something interesting will occur...
Yep, experienced the TV effect with Team Dragonstone as well - they've cast some great British character actors in this series. Charles Dance has made me love and want more of Tywin Lannister - he's so frigging good in that role. And Lena Headly - in regards to Cersei. But no one more so than the Stannis, Mel, Davos, Bran, and the people with Bran - those actors are mezmerizing.
I struggle with Jon Snow for the same reasons. He is clearly the Luke Skywalker trope. You know, the young boy who has a coming of age journey to become the hero and never really does anything too horrible along the way? Dany at least isn't treated in this matter - making her a far more interesting character. I know people on my flist and in my workplace who adore Jon Snow (they also loved Ned Stark) but I found both to be dull and a tad predictable.